I don't think anyone is advocating a few minutes. As an example the above screenshot from USBA indicates a two week and one day period. A week for nominations, a one day turnaround, and a one week voting period. The proposed wording provides a four week window which feels pretty reasonable.
I don't think it creates anymore opportunity than a normal election or appointment. It would preclude one "good apple" from running if a "bad apple" and a friend wanted. It does nothing to prevent other "good apples" from running.
That wasn't a direct quote from this thread more a combination of things posted here and elsewhere (so maybe the quote marks weren't ideal). If you want a direct quote though
feels pretty similar.
The trend being incumbents always winning. If you've seen a couple elections and the only new faces come from openings, it's not surprising to see openings generate the most interest.
I would say the "fried to a crisp" part is a negative. I would much rather see more people involved and previous board members who are still engaged and therefore more likely to be available for unexpected vacancies.
I think most people do realize that, and are grateful for the effort that goes into the club.