The old WC qualification cycle is better than the present qualification process.

I believe that FIDE or PCA should bring back the old format for the world chess championship qualification system.

There are several reasons why I believe that the old system (pre-1993) is better:

1)  It was a longer time period. 3 years.  This allowed time for people to prepare for their qualifying tournaments and also matches.  They could also spend time to prepare for their opponents by waiting for the Informant to come out or invent new ideas. Now they can use the Internet to get the new ideas and come with an interesting novelty.
Also, the person who was world champion got the time to celebrate and enjoy being the world champion for 3 years. He/she or could spend 3 years getting endorsement deals or making money from books, guest appearances, or starring in hair shampoo commercials.

2) It is called the world champion because it is supposed to represent the WHOLE WORLD.  The current cycle only invites the 4 rated players and 2 winners from grand prix and 1 random person and 1 previous qualifier. So in order to get to the world championship candidates tournament, you pretty much have to have a really high rating or be really lucky.  Also once you have that top 5 rating, then you don't have to play much. you can just sit like a fossil and wait for the next cycle to come around.
The old system was better because it represented the world.  Champions from each Zonal tournament could be invited to play in the interzonal tournaments.  Then the top winners from those events would play in the candidates events and then the winner would play the world champion.  the fact that the pool of players came from the WHOLE world of championships means that anyone had a equal chance of making it provided they were good enough to play in their zonal championship.

3) Location, location, location, location.  Every tournament was usually held in a different location.  This feature made it interested.  For example in the 1972 cycle, the interzonal was played in Palma De Mallorca (wherever that is), the candidates were played in Vancouver (that's in Canada), Denver (USA), Argentina (Brazil), and other countries.
Now everything just happens in Russia or wherever the FIDE president decides which is really really boring  *yawn*.

4) Location changes leads to harder preparation.  If you have to play in Denver there is high altitude so you have to be use to running out of breath while playing chess.  But Argentina is really hot so you have to be able to play chess while sweating or in the dark in case of a power outage (like in the Fischer Petrosian match).  So it means the better player is going to get to the world championship.

5) Better time controls. Nowadays people play chess and then they get increment and have to keep playing until the game ends.  But this is not good because it leads to lower quality chess due to fatigue.  The old cycle had people the opportunity to play with an adjournment.  This is good because then they can go home or back to their hotel room and study the position in their pajamas.  They feel more relaxed and ready for the next day.  This leads to better chess games and more honest world champion.

6) More attention and more press.  Longer cycles allow for the newspapers to buzz about the past and current events.  There will be wider attraction and bigger audience than right now.

7) larger prize money was available. Intel offered a lot of money in the 90s. Plus in the 70s and 80s the world championship had more money considering inflation and time value of money.  the 1990 world championship with kasparov and krapov had a prize fund of $3 million.  That is a lot of money. you can buy a lot of gallons of milks and oreo cookies with that kind of money.  but the last title match with the "new cycle" was only $1 or $2 million.

In summary, the old cycle was better.  I gave my reasons above.  I am sure there are more. 
ok thanks for reading.  i like eating oreo cookies and milk.