[EM] sequential dropping

[James Green-Armytage]

>However, I see the following problem: When someone promotes a
>Condorcet method that violates monotonicity, then he cannot use
>IRV's violation of this criterion as an argument against IRV.

	Yes, that is true, but I rarely if ever use monotonicity failure as an
argument against IRV. I feel that there are many pro-Condorcet/anti-IRV
arguments that are substantially more convincing. Of course, all else
being equal, I prefer that a method be monotonic.
>
>In situation 2 of my 12 July 2000 mail, beatpath chooses candidate F
>while sequential dropping chooses candidate D. You can fill the
>remaining pairwise defeats with arbitrarily chosen numbers. Then
>this example could look e.g. as follows:

	Thank you Markus. What a complex and interesting example! Am I correct in
thinking that minimax chooses E in this example, ranked pairs chooses D,
and river chooses F?

my best,
James

>AB 21
>BC 17
>CD 15
>DE 13
>EF 18
>FG 19
>GA 14
>DB 16
>GE 20
>AC  1
>AD  2
>AE  3
>AF  4
>BE  5
>BF  6
>BG  7
>CE  8
>CF  9
>CG 10
>DF 11
>DG 12