Who says we have a "two party system"? Any idiot knows there are many other parties to choose, but most of the alternate parties don't appeal to the masses. The writer probably thinks this is a "democracy" as well.
Well, we don't really have a republic anymore, either, if that is what you are implying.
Truth is, we have always had a two party system, even though this was not intended by the Founding Fathers, nor provided for in the Constitution. That's not the problem, though.
The problem is that the two current de facto parties - Dems and Repubs - have queered the system so that it is impossible for anyone to change or displace the two incumbent parties.
People who complain that "third" parties only "throw" the election to one or the other of the two parties, miss the point of what "third" parties are all about. The ultimate purpose of a third party is not to throw an election, but rather to displace one of the existing two parties, and to become part of the "two party" system in its stead. This is what the Republicans did in the 19th century, when they displaced the Whigs.
This is an important function of the two party system, because whenever one of the parties becomes unresponsive or out of touch, it can be replaced by a "third" party, which can come from out of nowhere, virtually overnight, if need be (which is what the GOP did when it replaced the Whigs).
If, in the 1850's and 1860's, we had had the kind of ballot access laws that we have now, the Republican Party would probably never have existed (except as an obscure splinter party), Lincoln would have remained an obscure congresscritter, and the Whig Party might still be around as part of the "two party system".
Third parties keep the two major parties honest. This cannot happen, however, when ballot access laws, media, fundraising issues, and incumbent power make it impossible for third parties to ever be anything but spoilers for the other side.
This stiffles change and entrenches incumbent, corrupt elites within the parties, who do not need to fear being displaced by large but politically disarmed factions within the two parties. Consider what happened to Buchanan as one example; when he tried to change the Republican Party from within, GOP insiders denied him access to the primary ballot in several states, and sabotaged him in others. But when he ran as an independent, he risked either "throwing" the election to the Dems, or simply wasting his time and resources on a hopeless third party effort.
This is what happens when we let the two parties collaborate with each other to protect incumbents and to shut out third party access to the ballot. Are we really suprised how out of touch both parties are with their own base of support?
At least, it seems to me that this is the case with the GOP. The Dems may be happier with their party, but I doubt it.