[EM] How to break this tie?

[Chris Benham]

Marcus,
If  a candidate y pairwise beats candidate x, and also candidate y 
pairwise beats all (if any) of  the candidates that are
pairwise beaten by x, then is that what is meant if we say that y  
"covers" x?  (If it isn't, then what is?)

Assuming the answer is "yes",  then what is wrong with having a rule at 
the front of an election method that says
"eliminate, (or bar from winning) all 'covered' candidates"?
That would make the method meet Pareto, so would there then still be a 
problem  separately resolving sub-cycles?

Chris Benham