@1
"Get rid of Rating Qualification" ++ Agree
"Top 2 in Previous Candidates - Best Round Robin Tourney" ++ The loser of the previous World Championship Match should get a spot. Top 2 from 2/3 years ago makes no sense.
"Top 2 in World Cup - Best Knock Out Tourney" ++ Questionable. Knock-out is a lottery. Even more so with rapid/blitz/armageddon tiebreakers.
"Top 2 Grand Swiss - Best Swiss Format Tourney" ++ Questionable. Swiss is an erratic format. It depends on who you get to play with white and who with black. Swiss demands taking risks, but it can backfire.
"Top 1 FIDE Circuit - Most Consistent Player of the Cycle (two year period)" ++ Questionable. Define consistency. Maybe rating is the best measure of consistency, but then we get back to last minute tournaments or matches to boost rating.
"1 Representative from Olympiad Winning Country - Federation to select/nominate"
++ Only leads to more collusion and politics. Why should a player from a small country say Norway not be eligible for this spot. Why should a player from a country that is denied participation in the Olympiad be denied this spot? Besides Olympiads follow a 4 year cycle, and World Championship a 2- or previously 3-year cycle. Why should a player from a big chess country get an extra spot, so he can collude with his compatriots in the Candidates'?
I would rather go back to the old Zonal/Interzonal tournaments and then Candidate Matches.
Here is my Proposal to get the Eight Candidates Participants
Top 2 in Previous Candidates - Best Round Robin Tourney
Top 2 in World Cup - Best Knock Out Tourney
Top 2 Grand Swiss - Best Swiss Format Tourney
Top 1 FIDE Circuit - Most Consistent Player of the Cycle (two year period)
1 Representative from Olympiad Winning Country - Federation to select/nominate