Well it is to me. I think the president should be elected directly.
Having the Electorall College deciding on the choice against the popular vote results is very rare with only cases happening three times in the 19th century (1824, 1876, and 1888) and just once in modern history (2000).
The current system is arachic and set up by the elites who think they should take the say choosing the president at that time. It could be changed if we get all of the states to agree to give all of their electors to the one who has won the national popular vote instead of the popular vote in the state. That way the candidates won't ignore the small states and rural areas as they will still have some attention from them. Even with the current system, in the last election 18 states were ignored (no TV ads) and not visited. We can make a law requiring candidates to spend XX time in smaller states and rural areas if we ever abolish the electoral college. Polls have consiently favored in its abolishment since WWII...with a considerable majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in favor.
More about it here.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popu...erstate_Compact
Of course communication was an issue back that time, but I doubt the 1820s were any better than the 1780s as people were still using horses to travel around and the USA was bigger in the early 19th century than in the last years of the 18th. It wasn't any easier until rail went into fruit in the 1850s.
Another reform we could do is letting people living in the territories vote as well. People from the Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. cannot have a say in a presidental election. It's unexcusable to deny a few millions American citizens living there from voting or have any Congressional representatives. We could give them seats in the House since that represents the people as intented originally while keeping the Senate to the states (orginally intented to respresent the states in equal regardless of size or population).