The executive branch, or government, is typically not elected directly by the people, but rather formed by another elected body or person such as the parliament or the president. As a result, its members are not directly accountable to the people, individually or as a group. We consider a scenario in which the members of the government are elected directly by the people, and wish to achieve proportionality while doing so. We propose a formal model consisting of $k$ offices, each with its own disjoint set of candidates, and a set of voters who provide approval ballots for all offices. We wish to identify good aggregation rules that assign one candidate to each office. As using a simple majority vote for each office independently might result in disregarding minority preferences altogether, here we consider an adaptation of the greedy variant of Proportional Approval Voting (GreedyPAV) to our setting, and demonstrate -- through computer-based simulations -- how voting for all offices together using this rule overcomes this weakness. We note that the approach is applicable also to a party that employs direct democracy, where party members elect the party's representatives in a coalition government.

We study the parameterized complexity of the optimal defense and optimal attack problems in voting. In both the problems, the input is a set of voter groups (every voter group is a set of votes) and two integers $k_a$ and $k_d$ corresponding to respectively the number of voter groups the attacker can attack and the number of voter groups the defender can defend. A voter group gets removed from the election if it is attacked but not defended. In the optimal defense problem, we want to know if it is possible for the defender to commit to a strategy of defending at most $k_d$ voter groups such that, no matter which $k_a$ voter groups the attacker attacks, the outcome of the election does not change. In the optimal attack problem, we want to know if it is possible for the attacker to commit to a strategy of attacking $k_a$ voter groups such that, no matter which $k_d$ voter groups the defender defends, the outcome of the election is always different from the original (without any attack) one.