We are best represented by those in our own communities and those who we know on a first name basis. The article suggests 1 representative per 100,000 people - I'd much rather see that number down around 1k. If you want to get power back in the local, make people ONLY elect a local representative per 1k people (+/- 100) and then you can have tiers of representation above that - the local could be a collective 10,000 people with a council of 10 voting, where 1 of them goes to the region / state level - composed of 100 localities - representing 1,000,000 people. Then the national level is just the collective states in the system - preferably, somewhere around 100. It does make national borders harder to cope with, but you can just add layers on top to make super-nations and eventually a global council on top (haha, I made a funny :P)
You get the benefits of having national and state representatives that don't need to be hell bent on campaigns and buzz words and an even more important trait is passed on to the public - it makes political influence easy.
You have ONE person who you, and everyone in your community, knows. You pick that person collectively. If you don't like your regions pick, you can move. If you don't like the local region, you can move to a different local. You should have laws start small and get large through consensus across multiple constituencies.
That kind of system would get people SO MUCH MORE INVOLVED in the political system. And with technology, we can easily usurp the overhead of linkage between different levels of government. You get a small national government that has explicit powers, and tiers of representation below that, down to the local, where law needs to pass up through the tiers by consensus of senate like bodies past the local.