I was hasty in my reply.  As far as the election process itself is concerned, it's about as fair as it's going to get.  The college itself was a compromise much like another notable portion of our government.  It's basically the half-way point between directly electing a president through popular vote and functioning on a level equivalent to a parliament.  It only has trouble when the elections are so close that even if it weren't an electoral college, the results would've been disputed simply because so few separated the candidates.  Bush v. Gore wasn't the first case of a close election being decided without the popular vote.  I doubt it will be the last, but it doesn't happen anywhere near the level of "often" and the alternatives won't make the system better.

As far as voting methods go, I've never understood why there just isn't a universal form of voting, at least for national elections.  That should be worked on, but apparently not enough people care because, for the most part, again, the system works despite its hiccups.  Most states are able to come up with functional ballots and have a well organized means of collecting/counting them unlike say... Florida.

Now if you're talking about campaigning, well yeah, money certainly makes the campaign but doesn't always elect the candidate.  But like I said, the guy has money because the guy put himself in a better situation(more often than not) and decided to spend money on a political view or candidate.

All this is worked around a simple fact that we're social animals that operate under rules and regulations, often unspoken to maintain the social order.  Kinda like being here.  Government is just a larger manifestation of that.

Don't forget that California and the New England states would effectively be the battleground every election.

If you refer to the notion of removing the Electoral College in favor of a direct, popular vote, then no.. I don't think it would lead to additional exploitation of the populous. If such a thing occurred then it would be a reduction of bureaucracy and thus equate to less opportunity for politicians and political processes to step on our toes.

Someday I would love to see us be able to vote for things on a national level more than just the presidency; as well as on the city- and state-level governments on a more regular basis. Of course that cannot happen until we have a voting mechanism that's both secure (ha.) and easily deployed often. The danger to that, however, is the general ignorance of the public. To open more issues up to a popular vote would be an invitation for idiots to affect policy where at least our representatives could provide some protection - though they've proven to be far from idiot-proof, themselves.