[EM] Re: Improved Generalised Bucklin

[Chris Benham]

  In response to this example:

31:  B>A>E>C>D
>23:  C>B>A>E>D
>25:  D>A>C>E>B
>11:  D>C>B>A>E
>10:  E>A>C>B>D
>100 voters, the Smith set is ABC.

which in pairwise terms,boils down to (with the margins in brackets)
C>B 69-31 (38)
A>C 66-34 (32)
B>A 65-35 (30)

Eric Gorr wrote:
"Now, the defeat that could cause A to lose is the weakest defeat here.

More people would rather have C then B.
More people would rather have A then C.

Since the fewest number of people would rather have B then A, it gets ignored.

Simple cycle. Simple & clear resolution.
I can think of no reason why it should be resolved any other way."

CB:I concede that in this example, the candidate (B) picked by "my method" is the
least pretty of the three Smith set members. 
(And yet, just on grounds of apparent fairness,I don't really see that A has a 
 compelling case versus C,which has the highest votes-for-minus-votes-against score:
C+6, A+2, B-8.)
I understand that it has recently been shown that both Ranked Pairs and Beatpath fail
Participation (aka Generalised Monototonicity),and according to my relatively uneducated
instinct these methods (IGB,RIGBE,IGB-RIGBE Runoff)do not. I expect this to result in
fewer/less serious srategy problems, paying the relatively small price of sometimes
electing the "wrong" member of the Smith set.

Chris Benham