Not to hate on this idea as I quite like it, but there is a serious problem here. I was reading over old threads for fun (as I usually do, yes I'm weird) and ran across something from back in the day about the big MK Ban vote that happened right before the Unity Ruleset Committee decided to ban him. The thread is called: URC Analysis - Voluntary Response Polling and the 75% Myth (if you want to see it, it's in the Competitive Brawl forum I'm sorry I can't link it, I don't have much time to access the internet at the moment and the signal I get is very weak.)
To summarize: A voluntary response poll like you have suggested AA is inaccurate and in the end will sadly be pretty useless
So, in this way I've kinda mutilated a core part of the idea which I didn't want to but had too. This kind of a vote you suggest while being awesome because players are represented just wont work properly.
BUT there are some fantastic things mentioned in this thread, and I wanted to look at them:
We cannot use Brawl or Melee (or even Smash 64) as a precedent for our new ruleset. We did this from Melee to Brawl and look how horribly it turned out. We set ourselves up for it though, Brawl was so different then Melee that even with a few similar principles what we did for Melee didn't work with Brawl. Smash 4 is going to yes have some of the basics we know, but it is too entirely different to just base what we think off of other smash rulesets. With one exception.
I truly believe the reason why Melee has such a good ruleset was that they followed the methods of other fighting game communities and did not ban until proven banworthy. With Melee people didn't have assumptions on what smash used to be or has already been so they set out with an open mind and testing everything thoroughly. In the end it created a great ruleset for their game. We really have to do this over and pretend each previous iteration of smash just plain doesn't exist to find the proper ruleset for this smash.
With special cool news being we have TWO smash games this time and even have the opportunity to have separate rulesets for testing. The people really dedicated to the Smash 3DS community for example have all so far really liked the idea of making it a “stepping stone” smash to get new players into tournaments, so we may even have items standard along with a more relaxed stagelist. People who keep dismissing the 3DS have to wake up and use this tool we have to help a niche and build up our scene as a whole.
Next, people mentioned LGLs among other things. We need to not have these kinds of arbitrary rules. I bet people have heard Sirlin's ban criteria a billions times but he simply put it so well I can't think of a better way. The BBR (though not always the best organization) had the intelligence to oppose such rules, and I wish more people would have caught on. We need to keep the integrity of the game when we can and not put in random rules just because like we did much too often with Brawl. Banning a certain character from a stage wont do it, but the LSS (sometimes called “Flossing” if people want an easier term) can avoid that being necessary altogether which is awesome. Worried about being chaingrabbed on a walk off? Ban it! Can't fight those IC's on FD? Ban it! You don'thave to worry if FD should be a starter or not because of some matchups or if that one CP skews these matchups and not others. Things like Brinstar could still be legal with Flossing, and since it is far superior to the current method adopting it just makes sense. Yes there are some stages that will rarely see play but those stages still need to be there for the times they can and should.
Finally, something I don't think we always consider in creating rules but honestly needs to be a factor: HYPE. You want this game to look good to spectators, you want the game to get people on the edge of their seat and pumped up watching. In Brawl MANY suggestions where made to help with these problems (2 stock bo5, 1 stock b07 and many others) that could have made Brawl a lot better for everyone involved, but people were too stuck in the past to even try.
Which brings me sorta back to my first thing, WE CAN'T LIVE IN THE PAST. If we see the ruleset we made isn't working we need to sit down and change it, even if it's a seriously big change we need to do it instead of trying to put band-aids here and there like we did in Brawl.
Also, if we are to try some new method of ruleset making outside of the BBR or something like Unity coming back to life we need to offer real incentive to use it. It can be as simple as hosting big tournaments with the ruleset to make people want to practice with it. Why do so many people practice under Apex rules? With no incentive to try whatever we create no one is going to even use it once we are done, the BBR has proven that with its recommended ruleset. Whatever idea you come up with you have to make it have a reason for people to want to use it at all.
I think I posted my idea for the 3DSA somewhere in this thread. I know is surely has issues, but I know for at least the 3DS we're going to try some ambitious things whether we use that idea or something else. Whatever you are planning it is going to have to take a unified group of dedicated people who provide an actual reason to use the ruleset you come up with in the process. Do not make the mistakes of Unity, and be sure to not lead by somehow forcing it on players. In all honesty unified rulesets can have some serious weaknesses too. What you really need is something that can help make locals huge as locals are the base on which the entirety of our community is based.