The system ate my original post. This is a repost.
You may enjoy Urbano's unique analysis of political systems.
Urbano dela Cruz also asked several other questions:
Urbano: "how do you select the triads at each level?"
I anticipate that triad (group) selection will be done by computer. An Election Commission will maintain the voter rolls and process the data. In setting up the triads, the Commission must insure randomness at the initial level. After the initial assignments, randomness is natural because the triad selections will tend to be unpredictable.
One possible way of insuring randomness in the initial triad assignments is to maintain the rolls in an unordered fashion with new voters added to the bottom and deletions in place. In this case, the grouping would be a two-step process:
Step 1: A bottom-up grouping of the voters in sets of three.
Step 2: Repetitively applying a geographical-based algorithm to optimize the groups in terms of each voter's residence until an optimum point is reached; the point at which the greatest distance between two voters can not be reduced.
For subsequent levels, as each group reports its selection, the selection will be added to a "level-list" in the order in which they are received. The "level-list" will then be processed in the same way as the voter rolls.
This is one possibility. I'm sure professional data managers can come up with something better. Obviously, I'm assuming that such a geographical-based algorithm exists or can be constructed.
Urbano: "you require that a person can't vote for himself in a triad so there is the possibility of a three way tie each time. how do you resolve that?"
"If a group is unable to select a representative in the specified time, the group is disqualified."
This is, I think, an important feature. If none of the three is able to persuade the other two that they are worthy of selection, they are not suited for public office. (If they can not persuade two people of their value, would we want them representing us?)
Urbano: "what if the worthy ones lose interest early?"
Many worthy people shun public life. I don't think we can decide who is "worthy" and who is not, except by their willingness to make their presence felt on our society. If you don't mind a modest jest on a serious topic, judging by our present electoral process, the less worthy people are, the more interest they have in public office.
Your question invites two other observations:
1) The triad/troika process I've described completes in some number of months. Since it is progressive, I think those who advance will have a increasing interest rather than diminishing. That seems less onerous than the "campaign trail" which one must traverse to the end before finding out whether or not they have been rejected.
2) The process will require a law similar to that which allows military reservists to spend time on active duty without penalty at their place of employment. Those who advance can not be economically penalized for doing so.
Urbano: "will the process of self-selection defeat the intent? i.e. -the more determined ones will keep moving forward -with no accounting for actual abilities?"
Determination is one of the many traits successful candidates will require. I don't consider that a bad thing.
Their accountability will be severely tested. One may self-select, but one can not advance without convincing two other people, who (at the upper levels) have as much interest in advancing as they do, that they have the talents and abilities that make them the best choice of the three.