Not sure, as these things keep changing. It used to be by a qualified voting system, where full (ie Test) members exercised two votes each and Associate members had one. May have changed now to completely exclude the Associates from the decision-making. In either case, a bid from India & Pakistan would start as favourite, and would win, unless there is some political arm-twisting which cannot be ruled out at some international fora. Good idea in theory but in practice, it means the WICB, which has one Test team, is also financially not very strong and does not have a whole raft of sponsors, hosts the tournament as often as India + Sri Lanka, which have two Test teams, and in India, have the sponsors who fund the international game, a large population which is cricket mad and a passion for ODI cricket in all its shapes and guises.

Hence, any cyclical formula will be subject to disruptions, and changes - one simply cannot predict 20 years in advance, which will be when the 6th leg of a 6-stage Cycical programme would take place! Even predicting two World Cups in advance is silly - each tournament should be awarded to the best bid, with the proviso that no region/country hosts two successive tournaments. This way, the sub-continent may end up hosting every other World Cup, but given that it is the true home of one-day cricket, that would not be too unfair on the others - they know where the financial rewards are!

Similarly, it is a travesty that a place like England, where ODIs and even the World Cup is seen as a poor relation to "boring and predictable" two horse contests such as the Ashes, has staged two more World Cups than India and Pakistan combined! Even in your suggested scheme Andy, England (pop: 60m; fav. sports: football and soccer) would stage as many tournaments as India (pop: 1,000m; Sport = Life = Cricket) - that is unfair in theory and unachievable in practice. Why is that any different to some of your suggestions, where tournaments will be organised over 4 or even 5 countries? The 2003 and 1996 World Cups were both staged in three different countries, it didn't make any difference to anything or anyone. Adding Bangladesh to the the three others of 1996 merely means that the Banglas would get to play two or three pool games at home, nothing more, and who could begrudge them that? This example actually works against your argument - in practice, Perth would never have only two games. It is one of Australia's premier cricket venues, so would have quite a few games, including possible a QF and maybe even a SF. The distances travelled are very large indeed.

On the other hand, Dhaka and Chittagong would not host more than three or four games between them - hence, if it is okay for teams to travel for two games to Perth, it should be much easier to take the very short flight from Calcutta (in West Bengal) to Dhaka (in former East Bengal!) for the same two games. And let's face it, unlike Perth, Dhaka is not going to host a QF or a SF anytime soon! Did anyone who observed or participated in the 1987 or 1996 tournaments talk of these "logistical problems"? By universal acclaim, both tournaments were a great success. So could Australia - but they did not in 1992, and do not plan to, in the new bid. umm..no! The time difference between all of India and all of Pakistan is 30 minutes. Add another 30 minutes for the token game or two in Bangladesh - so 1 hour maximum. Now compare that to the time difference between Perth and Auckland (4 hours!) or even Adelaide and Wellington (2.5 hours).

Also, this might be a minor point of geography, but the sub-continent does not constitute all of Asia so no one is going from "one end of Asia to the other" - there are many thousands of miles of Asia east of Bangladesh, north of India and west of Pakistan.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain