…rather than membership in professional networks (e.g., "Christian philosophers," "decision theorists," "Kant scholars," "friends of Sally"), or demographic diversity.   Over the years, I have been pretty good at identifying those who should be elected on the merits.  For example, on my 2010 list of "sins of omission," most have since been elected, although I'm still astonished that Larry Laudan, one of the major figures in philosophy of science in the last fifty years, did not; and there is still time to make up for some of the other omissions.  (Larry, I suspect, did not kiss up to the right people, but he was a far more important figure in the history of philosophy of science than at least a half-dozen folks who were elected over the last quarter-century.)

Here's a more recent assessment of omissions, and again, some of those omissions have now been rectified.   Still, it does seem to me if this recognition is to remain meaningful, notwithstanding the well-known corruption of the process, the following philosophers in their 60s and 70s really should be recognized in the next five years:   Frederick Beiser (Syracuse, emeritus), Peter Carruthers (Maryland), Maudemarie Clark (UC Riverside) John Martin Fischer (UC Riverside), Michael Forster (Bonn/Chicago), Derk Pereboom (Cornell), Alexander Rosenberg (Duke), Nathan Salmon (UC Santa Barbara), A. John Simmons (Virginia), Galen Strawson (Texas), William Wimsatt (Chicago, emeritus).  I'd add that I would expect all of the following (who are younger than the preceding group) to be elected in the next five years if scholarly achievement is the only consideration:  Michael Della Rocca (Yale), Verity Harte (Yale), John Hawthorne (USC/ACU), Niko Kolodny (Berkeley), Richard Moran (Harvard), Gideon Rosen (Princeton), David Wallace (Pittsburgh).  I am not optimistic, but we shall see!