It is easy to imagine that a purely democratic system would be better, but I find it easy to imagine that it would be substantially worse.
The founding fathers rightly believed that most people were ignorant and relatively stupid so the people vote for the house, but senators and electors were appointed.
The agreement to get small states to join was that they would have an equal number of senators. If you want a different system change the constitution. Im skeptical that a democratic system would be better.
They setup the system to be a collection of states with a weak federal govt with limited power. The federal govt over time has taken more and more power from the states.
When california joined the union it had 33X less population than the most populous state (new york). Californians were happy to have the overrepresentation when it benefitted them.
Overall a strongly federal system is worse than a system where 50 states each try something different. In a 50 state system we get many chances to find the best policies. For example when marijuana is illegal at the federal level the antis predicted wholesale mayhem. There was no way to test to see what would happen until some states defied federal law. Once one state showed that it was fine others could come on board.
The same goes for open carry. Antis claimed there would massive increases in crime and shootings. It turns out not to be the case.