Michael, Scott, hence the role of the editorial panel. I see the need for some limited editing, but I do not like the idea of one person making these calls.
My proposal allows for a wide spectrum of refereeing. There could be, for example, "Michael's pick" and there could be "politburo pick" and there could be "vox populi." All are possible within the framework I described. And all could delivered almost automatically without fuss.
(Some seem to be forgetting how much time goes into piping content into a magazine or book, never mind the time it takes for editors and critics to bicker among themselves; I once saw a fairly large photo forum literally implode over this very issue)
If people want to get fancy then there could be contributed editorials, $50 critiques, and, heaven forbid, even revenue generating ads (gasp)....
I don't think I understand the comment that democracy equals kittens and breasts. Between kittens and breasts and somebody foisting his or her vision of what photography should be upon us simple folk... between those extremes overrepresented in this thread is something reasonable. If you re-read what I proposed, you will see that it is more of a representative democracy than a free for all.