I'd like to clarify a bit about this method. First, the rule itself: *Drop the weakest defeat that is in a cycle, until there is an unbeaten candidate.* Does that sound right?
Next, I have a question about how this method compares to another method: *If there are no pairwise ties, is this method equivalent to beatpath?* If the answer is yes, then I think that this is a very good method for public proposals (although I suggest that a better name than "sequential dropping" should be found). In a public election, the likelihood of pairwise ties will be negligible, so the method becomes essentially equivalent to beatpath. From a results standpoint, I strongly prefer this method to plain minimax (drop weakest defeat, regardless of whether its in a cycle or not). Furthermore, I think that it is highly intuitive and easy to explain. (You've already explained that there is a cycle, e.g. A beats B, B beats C, C beats A, so it is intuitive to continue with "drop the weakest defeat in the cycle." People will intuitively understand that the defeats outside the cycle aren't the ones that we need to cut down.) my best, James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info