DEMOCRATIC WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP CYCLE
It seems the problems are always the same because three different entities need to be satisfied:
Everyone is looking for reliability of winners and continuity of standards, many of them preferring through exciting or beautiful games, but more specifically organizers are more care about scheduling, players about preparation and community about credibility (considering only main and most memorable results).
So I advise to FIDE some democratic rule.Section 1 Ė Votes for Organizer, Prize Fund, Sponsored player
Starting from the double-round-robin ďWCC Candidates TournamentĒ
with 8 players, including the winner of the World Cup (who could be a rising star) and the top-4 from the Grand Prix, not all would agree that the remaining 3 players should be the top-3 from a ďLast Chance TournamentĒ
(for the runners-up, 3 from World Cup, the rest from Grand Prix) or the top-2 plus a sponsored one.[FIDE could save money if instead of GPís top-4 it was GPís top-6 but cancelling Last Chance Tournaments if a sponsor gives a player who has the same right of a possible ďtop-1Ē from it]
This questionable (money related) question could be solved in a democratic manner, without any diktat from FIDE, if each one of the 5 players would vote, before the tournaments, the candidate organizers who gave information like prize funds possibly increased (FIDE should give a basic prize fund to every organizer) to let their sponsored players to take part in the tournament or simply to incentive their election adducing other cultural, political, commercial or technical information.
In other words a publication which displays the reasons to choose one organizer over another, likely after a series of pre-publications between the organizers (bidding is democratic too), and perhaps reducing the number of candidate organizers through votes from all federations (to avoid cases like 5 organizers for 5 players, or Russian players as 90% of community who settle the 100% of things): decisively, a tidier manner for the long negotiations between organizers, federations and players.
A player would see a simple resuming questionnaire like this (rough draft) to choose his preference:
In case of a tie result the voting will be repeated with only the three or two most voted candidates.