Sorry chap, but your point was effectively bullcrap. 
Exclusivity has absolutely ZERO weight in the vote of any panelists I know. Personal taste, design integrity, and quirk yes, but votes for exclusivity remains the domain of GD and the handful of courses that preclude all others but GD from rater visits.
The GM Top 100 process is considerably different than GD or GW. I'm not saying it's uniformly better, but the emphasis is on seeing worthy courses throughout the world and it does take time for a mere 100 to get to places like China, Australia, Thailand and the Netherlands. Votes are made only on courses that have been played and GM panelists are asked to state the last time they've visited that course. This alone explains the ascent of Shanquin Bay and Ellerston.
BTW.....Although too late for the 2015 ballot, expect to see Cabot Cliffs debut on this list very, very high....perhaps the highest modern since Sand Hills or Pac Dunes.
Steve:
As a fellow GOLF Magazine panelist, I wish I agreed with your defense of the process ... but I can't say that I do. It just seems to be the "international" version of GOLF DIGEST's love for certain exclusive U.S. courses that hardly anyone BUT a panelist can visit. I feel strongly that the committee is now stacked with people voting in favor of token additions from different countries including South Korea, China, Portugal, and now Thailand and The Netherlands [though I like Royal Hague very much]. The fact that several of these clubs have paid big money to host a tournament as an excuse to pay quite a few panelists to travel there, just before their remarkable climbs up the list, is too big of a coincidence for my senses to believe.
I have not seen the whole list yet and I don't particularly care whether Old Macdonald has slipped a bit or not ... perhaps that will make room in my quota for a different course to push up the list next time. But it would be nice to believe that the rankings are still on the level, and it is getting harder to believe every two years.
If I'm not on the panel in two years' time, just refer back to this post! 
Tom,
Your disagreement might be one of semantics. My argument was sheerly a response to the postulate that "exclusivity" of the clubs matter.
I don't disagree that the inclusion and rise of a small number of courses from the likes of a "few" number of countries you cited is undoubtedly a reflection of the active and financially-generated advocacy of a (few) panelists. It is also in no small part due to the magazine's desire to name courses from "all over the world." I've yet to play three of them in question so I couldn't say whether they are truly worthy or not. I've heard both sides from a few people whom I respect, but I'll reserve my final judgement until I tee it up at those venues.
I also don't disagree that the process is unfairly skewed by the FIFA-like practice these pay-to-play tournament events. It's really not right nor defensible. The only recompense is to add/replace with panelists who are immune to such pseudo-charms and I believe that is taking place. albeit slowly. For example, several of the recent adds have entirely too much self-respect to fall prey to the charms of a marketeer.
The panel would suffer an egregious loss without you and no matter where your courses or votes come out, your eye is among the most learned, experienced, and critical of the group. Regardless of our differences of opinion from time-to-time, I'd staunchly advocate for your participation and inclusion.
Cheers