[EM] Raynaud

[James Green-Armytage]

Hi Chris,
	Good to hear from you! Some replies follow...

>I  agree with your positive remarks about Raynaud here. I regard 
>Raynaud(Gross Loser) as one of the easy-to-explain contenders.

	I agree that Raynaud is easy to explain. I don't know about Gross Loser,
though... Winning votes is most intuitive to me. "This candidate was
opposed by 60% of voters in a pairwise contest! Eliminate him! Bam!" 
	I guess the GL equivalent would be "This candidate only got 30% of the
vote in a pairwise contest! Eliminate him! Bam!" I dunno... maybe.
>
>"Raynaud (GL):  Until one candidate remains, repeatedly eliminate the 
>candidate with the fewest votes in any of the pairwise comparisons among 
>the remaining candidates."
>
>Brief and succinct enough?  In a previous post I identified two other 
>possible versions of  Raynaud,  "Pairwise Opposition" (or WV) and 
>Margins.
>So why "Gross Loser"?  Because it is the only version that meets 
>Woodall's  Plurality criterion.

	I think that I understand your definitions. Can you prove that
Raynaud(GL) meets this criterion?
>
>Raynaud(GL) meets (mutual)Majority, all the Condorcet properties,
>Plurality, Clone Independence, of course mono-add-plump
>and mono-append, and NZIS (i.e. there are no zero-info. strategy
>incentives).

	Personally, I don't care a lot about random fill incentive... but are you
sure that it doesn't exist in this method? It seems like it would generate
some sort of queer incentive, but I don't know exactly what kind yet.
>
>Because it is far less vulnerable to Burying, I do actually prefer it to
>the "defeat droppers"!
>
	Hang on a moment... when did we establish that Raynaud was far less
vulnerable to burying than defeat dropping methods?? I mean, if it is,
that's great, but I don't remember anyone demonstrating that...

my best,
James
>
>
>