The more important question should be - why is politics about electing leaders? Why is it not about policies? I've always felt that the French, British and American systems of "democracy" fell far short of any real democracy. My best term to designate these systems is "representative despotism" - where you elect your tyrant for X years.
I much prefer a system like that of Switzerland, where there is no concentration of power into a single person, no commander in chief. Instead, there is a council of seven people who have to work together to implement policies which are directly voted on by the people. It is also a system where anyone can submit a policy to the vote (they just have a to get a significant number of signatures to put it to the vote).
I don't think it'll work in our current partisan environment. Its libtard this, neocon that. There is no discussing of actual issues, instead people play the partisan line. Even if the person completely disagrees with party policy they still back it vehemently.
Then you need to ask whether this partisanship was formed due to out dual election system, or whether because of this partisanship this dual election system was formed.
As far as the article is concerned, I think people are not bothered about institutional reforms because they feel that someone who can actually do something about it will be bothered in their behalf.
Let's none forget, people are sheep and without guidance they remain blind.
I much prefer a system like that of Switzerland, where there is no concentration of power into a single person, no commander in chief. Instead, there is a council of seven people who have to work together to implement policies which are directly voted on by the people. It is also a system where anyone can submit a policy to the vote (they just have a to get a significant number of signatures to put it to the vote).