As to the validity of elections, in the delicate balance between too much Provincial authority and too much diocesan authority there is always room for complaint. In the same church we elect by valid processes very different sorts of people as bishop. The are so different that the assumption that they will be willing to be together is unwarranted except by pledged vow to take their places in councils of the church.
I do take issue with one statement, for which I will hazard a guess a local critic will arise and soundly beat me about the ears. Clavier says,
"Unlike secular government, there are no opinion polls to assess theviews of parishioners. Deputies are not known to travel around dioceseshearing the views of parishioners. There is no culture of parishionerscontacting deputies, no “town hall meetings,” and little fear of losingone’s seat. Thus the checks and balances of a democratic system areunknown."
In this diocese it is the custom for the General Convention deputies to report back to diocesan convention the work and experience at GC. This is done in small groups. There is never enough time, but there are always some probing questions and considerable feedback following. In the work up to the next Convention we spend time again in workshops looking at the issues we believe are coming up. As to the fear of losing one's seat, there is a fair amount of turnover in our deputation and some attention is paid to the order of election as a result. A number of us were not returned in the past two rounds. The "checks and balances of a democratic system" are not unknown, even if they are also not universal in application. Some of us (myself included) have made real effort to get about the diocese, speak to lay and clergy leaders and otherwise check in. It is fairly easy in Delaware, a small state and diocese.
That off my chest, I do recommend Clavier's article. Go and read.