A perfect clone in an ordinal election (i.e., an election where the voters rank the candidates in a strict linear order) is a set of candidates that each voter ranks consecutively. We consider different relaxations of this notion: independent or subelection clones are sets of candidates that only some of the voters recognize as a perfect clone, whereas approximate clones are sets of candidates such that every voter ranks their members close to each other, but not necessarily consecutively. We establish the complexity of identifying such imperfect clones, and of partitioning the candidates into families of imperfect clones. We also study the parameterized complexity of these problems with respect to a set of natural parameters such as the number of voters, the size or the number of imperfect clones we are searching for, or their level of imperfection.

Fairness in multiwinner elections, a growing line of research in computational social choice, primarily concerns the use of constraints to ensure fairness. Recent work proposed a model to find a diverse \emph{and} representative committee and studied the model's computational aspects. However, the work gave complexity results under major assumptions on how the candidates and the voters are grouped. Here, we close this gap and classify the complexity of finding a diverse and representative committee using a monotone, separable positional multiwinner voting rule, conditioned \emph{only} on the assumption that P $\neq$ NP.

The study of fairness in multiwinner elections focuses on settings where candidates have attributes. However, voters may also be divided into predefined populations under one or more attributes (e.g., "California" and "Illinois" populations under the "state" attribute), which may be same or different from candidate attributes. The models that focus on candidate attributes alone may systematically under-represent smaller voter populations. Hence, we develop a model, DiRe Committee Winner Determination (DRCWD), which delineates candidate and voter attributes to select a committee by specifying diversity and representation constraints and a voting rule. We show the generalizability of our model, and analyze its computational complexity, inapproximability, and parameterized complexity. We develop a heuristic-based algorithm, which finds the winning DiRe committee in under two minutes on 63% of the instances of synthetic datasets and on 100% of instances of real-world datasets. We present an empirical analysis of the running time, feasibility, and utility traded-off. Overall, DRCWD motivates that a study of multiwinner elections should consider both its actors, namely candidates and voters, as candidate-specific "fair" models can unknowingly harm voter populations, and vice versa. Additionally, even when the attributes of candidates and voters coincide, it is important to treat them separately as having a female candidate on the committee, for example, is different from having a candidate on the committee who is preferred by the female voters, and who themselves may or may not be female.

Given an election, a preferred candidate p, and a budget, the SHIFT BRIBERY problem asks whether p can win the election after shifting p higher in some voters' preference orders. Of course, shifting comes at a price (depending on the voter and on the extent of the shift) and one must not exceed the given budget. We study the (parameterized) computational complexity of S HIFT BRIBERY for multiwinner voting rules where winning the election means to be part of some winning committee. We focus on the well-established SNTV, Bloc, k-Borda, and Chamberlin-Courant rules, as well as on approximate variants of the Chamberlin-Courant rule, since the original rule is NP-hard to compute. We show that SHIFT BRIBERY tends to be harder in the multiwinner setting than in the single-winner one by showing settings where SHIFT BRIBERY is easy in the single-winner cases, but is hard (and hard to approximate) in the multiwinner ones. Moreover, we show that the non-monotonicity of those rules which are based on approximation algorithms for the Chamberlin-Courant rule sometimes affects the complexity of SHIFT BRIBERY.

Election control problems are concerned with affecting the result of an election by modifying the structure of the election. Such election modifications could be either introducing some new candidates or voters or removing some existing candidates or voters from the election or partitioning candidates or voters [2, 27, 32, 42, 56, 57, 34, 35, 62]. We focus on the computational complexity of election control by adding and deleting candidates (that is, candidate control), for the case where the election involves only a few voters. From the viewpoint of computational complexity, voter control with few voters has not received sufficient study. We focus on very simple, practical voting rules such as Plurality, Veto, andt-Approval, but discuss several more involved rules as well. To analyze the effect of allowing only a small number of voters, we use the formal tools of parameterized complexity theory [21, 23, 38, 60]. From the viewpoint of classical complexity theory, most of the candidate control problems for most of the typically studied voting rules are NPhard. Indeed, candidate control problems are NPhard even for the Plurality rule; nonetheless, there are some natural examples of candidate control problems with polynomialtime algorithms. It turns out that for the case of elections with few voters, that is, for control problems parameterized by the number of voters, the computational complexity landscape of candidate control is much more varied and sometimes quite surprising.

The Coalitional Manipulation (CM) problem has been studied extensively in the literature for many voting rules. The CM problem, however, has been studied only in the complete information setting, that is, when the manipulators know the votes of the non-manipulators. A more realistic scenario is an incomplete information setting where the manipulators do not know the exact votes of the non- manipulators but may have some partial knowledge of the votes. In this paper, we study a setting where the manipulators know a partial order for each voter that is consistent with the vote of that voter. In this setting, we introduce and study two natural computational problems - (1) Weak Manipulation (WM) problem where the manipulators wish to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in at least one extension of the partial votes of the non-manipulators; (2) Strong Manipulation (SM) problem where the manipulators wish to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in all possible extensions of the partial votes of the non-manipulators. We study the computational complexity of the WM and the SM problems for commonly used voting rules such as plurality, veto, k-approval, k-veto, maximin, Copeland, and Bucklin. Our key finding is that, barring a few exceptions, manipulation becomes a significantly harder problem in the setting of incomplete votes.