Why is everybody so opposed to making sure each node gets its turn algorithmically?
Random selection from top of lists sorted by time-since-paid and time-visible-on-network would work fine.
Everybody would get a payment per time window of (number of masternodes mod 576) days.
The more I think about this, the more I believe the regularity of payments is not only a non-issue, but "fixing it" could actually be undesirable for a number of reasons. First, development of your proposed feature would take valuable time and effort away from the development team working on more constructive features or functionality aimed at consumers. Even if they did add it, it would not increase each masternode's expected payout, so it wouldn't even create value for MN operators, especially over the long-term over which payments should even out. Second, it would make the selection of the next MN less random and more predictable... which could have negative consequences (e.g., perhaps it could enable an attacker to predict high-probability MNs for DDoS attacks to disrupt the network). Random selection makes guessing the likelihood of the next MN as difficult as possible, thus providing greater security to the network. Third, the system is working fine now... it was designed to attract hundreds of well-managed masternode operators to provide a stable, always-on network infrastructure for coin mixing and anonymity services; and that it what it has done. We now have 600+ stable MN's up and operating as desired, and failing to fix a perceived "unfairness" of how frequently individual MNs are paid seems an unlikely threat to this network's size and stability at this stage... in short, there's nothing broken to fix.
If you feel you are being unfairly compensated, you are free to exit your MN investment at any time. If you and others decide to take this option, it will increase the likelihood (and frequency) of the remaining MNs receiving a payment. For my part, I'm buying DRK as we speak to add another MN, because I think the payouts I'm seeing are suffient. I imagine there are others like me. Thus, there should be a "market equilibrium" of sorts that we reach. I just don't see a burning issue, and I see plenty of downsides to implementing a less random, less secure solution.