I think you're completely right but there is an issue that GMs (I think Perpete) already talked about.
This issue is an issue of defining what a proper speech is.
For example, a serious candidate would write an explanation of how they rate their chances in the new qualification group, what changes need to be made to the team, and how the new scouting team would look like.
Not so serious candidates might simply write "I should win cause I'm the best!" in the Speech thread. They could also write something random like "Brgrgrhlufhafh" in the same thread. Now those people also have a speech. Would you be happier if you lost to a person that wrote a speech like those? I don't think so...
In my view, candidates should fill out a form when they declare candidacy, answering a set of relevant questions. There should be a minimum length for every answer in the form.
After the form is submitted by a candidate, it would be sent for reviewing to a team of reviewers (GMs/BBs/someone else), who would review the answers and approve before posting them on forums. Only then the candidacy should be approved.
As you can see, the problem of writing no answers or random answers to fill up length requirement would be gone, because candidates would know that somebody would read their answers before their candidacy is approved.
However, it might be possible that the answers provided are considered appropriate for some reviewers but inappropriate for others. This is why we need a team of reviewers to check applications together and make their decisions together.
I know, it's a lot of work - reading hundreds of candidacy speeches and approving them is a demanding task. But in my view, it's the only way to prevent situations like these from happening. And I think there is enough BB Staff for this to be a feasible option.
Furthermore, this solution wouldn't only prevent "silent candidates" from winning, it would also significantly improve the quality of speeches and debates, because it filters serious candidates from not-so-serious ones.
Those who bother to write a speech according to these standards are, in my view, proper candidates. Those who register for fun only might find it difficult to answer all of those questions. I believe those people don't deserve to manage a national team. Finally, with quality (and maybe controversial) speeches and good points made by serious contenders, I would expect to see quality debates going on in debate threads.
To conclude:
1. Candidates fill in a form with relevant questions, where every answer would have a minimum length.
2. The form is sent for a review to a team of reviewers, who have to approve the answers before posting them on forums and declaring the candidacy valid.
What do you guys think?