While I do agree with Ala and kd24 that Drizzle has been the problem all along (and I do realize banning Drizzle would lead to a ton of other bans, but I think its necessary at this point), the solution is most definitely not letting anyone and everyone nominate stuff. There's no real objective way of determining who is actually competent enough to have good reasoning behind their nominations (ladder ranking is "objective" but good at laddering =/= not stupid).
I honestly think OU could benefit from the system we're using in UU at the moment, but in a different way. Every time there is a vote, RT. and myself let anyone apply to take part in the vote, then we pick a few good ones out of all the applications, and they vote as part of the Senate. For OU, you'd do that, but you'd do it at the end of every round and it would be for deciding what is to be a suspect for the next round alongside the Council, rather than for the right to vote (although maybe they'd get a guaranteed/easier vote or something idk).
Granted, there's one huge drawback to using this system for OU--who the fuck wants to read that many applications? Even in UU I only get 15-20 on a good day, and usually its in the single digits, but I can imagine it'd be a lot more for OU. You could always try it a couple times and see how many you actually get and if its a readable amount (you'll get a ton the first time, but it'll die down a lot the next time), keep doing it.
Anyway, that's just one idea to integrate the general userbase into the process of deciding what will be suspected in a more direct way (compared to just going by the np thread, I mean)-- because that's what we should aim for here, imo.