1. The mechanics of voting is controlled by Stack Exchange
The first problem is that the actual process of VTC/VTR is programmatically controlled by Stack Exchange — not us. Any change would require their input (unlikely) and would affect all stacks (very unlikely). Such a request would need to be made on Meta.stackexchange.com.
2. We clear our queues very quickly
Ours is one of the most active sites for queue reviews. Just as with all stacks, a question finds its way into the VTR queue by (a) being edited or (b) someone casts the first VTR. Once in the queue, it's viewed by a great many people very quickly. As I understand it, a question in the VTR queue stays in the VTR queue until it gets its 5 votes (or until something else happens, like deletion).
Keep in mind that you're judging the VTR queue to have low visibility simply because your question wasn't reopened. You're ignoring the fact that there's a "leave closed" option and that people might believe that, edits notwithstanding, your question still warrants closure. Frankly, visibility isn't as much of a problem as you might think. IMO, most of the time, the OP has made little effort to understand the reason the question was closed and even less time trying to edit the question to conform to the rules.
3. The curious case of Primarily Opinion-Based
A big chunk of your problem is that we had to change how we interpret "primarily opinion-based." Nobody has "facts, references, or specific expertise" in magic (especially the unique system proposed by the OP). Since we do not have the ability to remove POB from use (we don't even have the ability to modify the text, which continues to make it a problem), we modified the interpretation.
In a nutshell, a question must be asked in a way that it simply isn't your opinion as to which is the best answer. You, the OP must provide clear information about how you will judge the best answer by adding goals, restrictions, and limitations. Basically, the question must be converted from an off-topic infinite list of things to an on-topic finite list of things.
4. Popularity != Suitability
While this is a problem found on many stacks, the simple reality is that ours is a highly creative and imaginative stack — and most people upvote because they like a question and not because they think the question is suitable.
The ugly truth is that a question on this site can be immensely popular and still violate the rules of suitability. Yup, we close such questions. Our goal is to (a) help you understand the rules of our site and (b) encourage you to modify the question to make it suitable. Questions written with the rules in mind tend to get better results, but as you've seen, that's not always necessary — but that's not a justification for not closing the question.
5. Stack Exchange does not require an explanation of votes
Personally, I frequently leave a comment rationalizing why I voted to close or reopen a question — but I am by far the exception. Stack Exchange requires no such comment. The reason for the closure is stated in the closure marquee. If you don't understand how that reason applies, you can always bring the issue to Meta (as you have done here).
But even if it made sense to leave explanatory comments, we have no control over the programmatic process. There's no way to enforce the behavior. It would require the Mods constantly reviewing every question to see whether or not someone had voted w/o a comment and then posting a private message to said individual reminding them to do so. The burden on the Mods would be catastrophically enormous.
In the end, it's the job of the OP to meet the rules and expectations of the site — not the obligation of the site to modify its rules and expectations for a single question. The process to change the rules begins here, on Meta, with a cogent explanation as to why the change should be made along with a proposed modification that is within the stack's ability to make.