I totally agree with your concept Jeri (he says patronisingly) but......
The problem with miasma (fantastic use of the word by the way - oh, that sounds even more patronising
) is that it is chaotic and unpredictable. It is therefore impossible to design a car to operate specifically to suit. Generally mid-field cars simply run more downforce to compensate and this (to some degree) can be dialed in when required. The problem with the current regulations (and several older iterations) is that they encourage complex aero packages. You are of course correct that every type of racing car causes turbulence. However, the F1 cars with their massive and complex front wings, barge boards, venturi generators, etc., etc. make such a mess of the air that it disrupts a huge area behind the car which stretches back over 50metres and effects cars following as far back as 2seconds. Even simple fluid dynamics simulations show that smaller wings and fewer baffles & diffusers result in smaller wakes and the 'dirty' air cleans up much quicker. The 'equation' is simple; reduce the size/complexity of aero components = reduced downforce = reduced turbulence. This has a two fold advantage, the turbulent air is reduced allowing cars to follow closer but, because the following cars are themselves less reliant on the aero performance, the wake causes them less problems anyway.
I have driven non-aero single seaters, mild-aero single seaters and complex-aero single seaters so I have some concept of the difference. F1 must have an aero package - it provides the fastest lap times and the mind-bending cornering speeds, it also adds a huge technical challenge to the designs which F1 should have. However, if the regulations limited the size and complexity of the aero packages I am sure cars could follow closer, 'draft' (as you North Americans call it) and overtake in a way that is currently impossible.