I had no problem understanding the grandparent's comment. Adding an intermediate layer into elections is a well-known method to introduce bias. If you control the way the vote is partitioned or aggregated, it's easy to rig the output. Two examples in the recent US history: the gerrymandering tradition, and the president that was elected with less votes than his opponent.
By the way, I wondered a bit if there was sarcasm in "I don't think there is a debate to be had that modern elections are using an optimal process." Which kind of modern election? The USA have a plethora of systems, and so do many countries. And some organisations have innovative vote systems, like Debian and its Condorcet method.
Funny you should mention that in the same paragraph as Condorcet (doubly funny that the Condorcet method is considered an innovation after 250 years). Basically anything after the French Revolution although most of the interesting research seems to have clustered in the last century (eg, Arrow's Theorem which proved that for a some reasonable definitions an elections can't be optimal - apparently only came up in 1950).
By the way, I wondered a bit if there was sarcasm in "I don't think there is a debate to be had that modern elections are using an optimal process." Which kind of modern election? The USA have a plethora of systems, and so do many countries. And some organisations have innovative vote systems, like Debian and its Condorcet method.