This kind of sentence reveals much about your psychology, and not in your favor, you should avoid it.
I think your comment is a little confusing, and I am not sure if you re trying to argue in favor of crowd-sourced reviews/ratings, apart from arguing against the effectiveness of peer review and against "government influence."
Anyway, if this is the case (that you believe that the opinion of peer scientists is of lesser value than that of the general public), I would like to point out that you are not examining properly any alternative to peer reviews, in particular crowd-sourcing. You also take your experience emotionally, and some arguments seem weak evidence for the dysfunction of the system as a whole:
> ... Sometimes we'd have to submit the paper to another journal.
> I don't like that some Professor Emeritus is holding to an older view, as that forces us to make our argument a bit stronger...