This may seem like an odd time to talk about Presidential electoral reform, but if you wait for the election that needs to be reformed, it's already too late. And the system by which we elect Presidents is overdue for reform. Just don't expect it to be easy, there is a whole class of powerful people who got that way by playing the current system, and they're not about to give that power up.
The founding fathers weren't all enamored with direct democracy, and they feared the power of the executive. So they came up with a system for choosing a President which isolated that selection from the people. They assumed, in those days before political parties, that a group of "wise men" called electors would be selected by the states, some by direct vote and others by the legislature, and these wise men would discuss and then choose a President based on what was best for the nation.
The world has changed since the 1780's. We directly elect every political office except the Presidency, and the Electoral College has lost any pretense of independence or greatness.
Additionally, because of how electors are allocated to the states, as the sum of Senators and Representatives, states with smaller populations are overrepresented in the electoral college in relation to larger states, since every state, whether California or Wyoming, has two senators. This is in conflict with the theory of one person-one vote that underlies our elections everywhere else.
Any change to this system will require a Constitutional amendment, and therefore will be difficult unless the change is supported by the vast majority of the American people, and their representatives.
The simplest solution to this would be direct election of the President by popular vote. When this has been proposed in the past, it has been opposed by the smaller population states who complain they will be ignored by candidates who will see more bang for their buck campaigning and serving the urban and suburban population concentrations on the East and West coasts. The counterargument can be made to this, that this past election shows that even with an Electoral College, only a few states are in "play" and get the majority of campaign attention, and these may be where many of the people aren't, like New Mexico or Nevada, while States like New York and Texas are effectively ignored.
Another option, which might be an easier sell to small states, would be the reform the Electoral College allocation scheme to better reflect the population. Rather than the number of Electoral votes being equal to a state's Senators and Representatives, instead make it twice the number of Representatives (twice was chosen because more representatives always seem more democratic than fewer). This would eliminate the artificial advantage small population states get because of equal allocation of Senators to all states. Electors would be elected by congressional district, breaking down the concept of Red and Blue states into Red and Blue districts. Even the Reddest State has some Blue areas, and vice versa. This will encourage candidates to run in states they currently ignore, bringing back the 50-State (and DC) campaign.
This is a compromise, but one which may be implementable. We should not be afraid of fair compromise, the founders weren't.