This is like you arguing against the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that made U.S. Senators directly elected by the people. Before the 17th Amendment, U.S. Senators were chosen by each state's legislature, and those legislators were directly elected by the people. That's your default sociocracy system: the Operations Leader is not chosen by direct consent of every person in the circle that the Operations Leader leads; instead, the Operations Leader is chosen by a direct consent of individuals in the higher circle, one of which is a representative from the lower circle. So it's even worse than the pre-17th Amendment situation, because at least there every state legislator picking a U.S. Senator was directly elected; but in sociocracy, only one of the many people involved in the choice (the representative from that lower circle whose Operations Leader is being chosen) is directly chosen by the people whose leader is being picked. Everyone else in the higher circle picking the lower circle's Operations Leader is a higher elite in that organization completely unchosen by lower raking members. Again, you're completely ignoring that I am not alone in my criticism of sociocracy's default rules (found at this link https://www.sociocracy.info/bylaws-for-a-sociocratic-organization/): others in the sociocracy listserve have modified the default rules to get rid of this elite top-down control, and so did the Bay Area chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, as I linked to in this original article that we're commenting on.