Perhaps but the crux of the issue I raise is why are dramas with relatively small audiences the only ones being deemed Emmy-worthy? If the shows are so good, why aren't more people watching them? Personally, an important attribute of a 'good' show is one that manages to be accessible across a wide audience.
They can be more complex and also serial dramas so people feel that they need to start from the beginning or they try to watch but are lost because they don't know what is going on.
With a procedural they can watch and fold laundry, text, cook and turn their brain off and just enjoy catching a bad guy and maybe some sexual tension between the leads.
They may also watch them on DVR weeks later, wait for DVD, borrow the DVD, Netflix, download, not watch until years later. So in ten years Mad Men could have the same size viewing audience as NCIS:LA.
Breaking Bad and Mad Men have seen their viewership grow each year because more people catch up during the breaks where network shows tend to decline after peaking in viewership in either seasons 1-3.
Better acting, better stories seem to be the reason they're nominated as the acting and writing categories are also filled with serial drama shows. Critics who have a job to watch lots of television seem to have the usual group of shows that are regarded to be the best. These are the people that watch EVERY pilot and watch a few episodes for a few new shows to see if there is something there. Cable allows writers to make a better product.
Also if you're an actor the cable series might appeal to you more so you watch 3 episodes of Homeland and skip all the CBS dramas because they don't appeal to you and you nominate that show. That's where campaigning and marketing comes in. People are busy with their jobs they don't have time to watch 30 dramas, 20 comedies, 20 reality shows.