You can't blame Venus and Momo for the 32 seeds. If any player were to blame, it would be Pete. Wimbledon went to the 32 seeds because of the surface specialization on the men's tour. They wanted to make sure the guys who could play on grass didn't wind up in the same quarter, and then have blowout wins by Pete in the semis and finals, when you are (in theory) supposed to have your best matches. And they did this also to appease the clay courters, who annually complained about being "de-seeded" at Wimbledon. As a compromise, Wimbledon went to 32 seeds, guaranteeing the 32 highest-ranked players would all be seeded, although reserving the right to adjust them for better draw balance.
The ironic thing is that the seed expansion has had the opposite effect of that which the "experts" predicted. They said there would be far fewer close matches in the early rounds on the women's side (as if they ever pay any attention). But it hasn't affected them much at all. You still get about 1/3 of the women's early round matches going the distance, just as with 16 seeds. And there are many matches with high seeds being challenged in the early going by unseeded players. There has, however, been a decrease in the number of early round men's matches going the distance.
So what if Serena, Kim, Venus, and other top seeds are rarely pushed to 4-all in a final set in the early rounds? Neither are Andre, Andy, Lleyton (when he had his sh*t together), or other top men when they played like top 10-ers. That's why slams have 128 players. If the stars aren't being challenged, and they aren't particular faves of yours, go watch someone else. There are plenty of close matches in the first week. The difference being, however, that the TV networks will always seek out close men's matches, but never women's matches. That's why that myth as been perpetuated over the years.
And if you're only going to seed players who are serious contenders for the title, then you're looking at seeding Clijsters, Henin, Williams, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo, Rubin, Agassi, Roddick, and Federer. How do you fill out 8 seeds then? Do you add Pierce, who may get healthy and recapture her form? Do you put in Sharapova, predicting a breakthrough? Does Hewitt get a seed? He's won it before, but been nowhere near that form recently. What about someone like Safin? He's outside the top 8 and the top 16. Do you think any top seed wants to face him in an opening round, for fear he may get his form back? Suppose he did. Would it be good for the tournament to have, say, Safin vs Roddick in the 1st round, see them play a grueling match, and the tired winner go down in round 2?
Grand Slam tennis is a business, and their assets are top players. And despite what some spinmeisters would try to have you believe, having a lot of upsets early is NOT a good thing. (If it were, there wouldn't be announcers and players taking potshots at the women whenever it happened.) They make the bulk of their money from TV; particularly network TV. And network TV makes the bulk of its money from the late rounds. They would like to see star players, or stars in the making, or at least familiar names. This increases viewership, and gives better odds of a memorable match. If the price of that is that the cable broadcaster has fewer close early matches involving top seeds, the slams are willing to pay it. There are plenty of other good matches early on, whereas there are no alternatives for the quarters, semis and finals.