You would have to elaborate more, at the very least on why you think that's the case, and why Electoral College was put in place before we can have a substantial discussion.

Additionally reasoning would be needed like what is making the present so different that it would be anachronistic. This isn't the first time this situation happened (candidate with plurality of popular votes not becoming President). In fact this isn't even the most controversial one either: the first time this happened, Andrew Jackson even had plurality of Electoral College. The 2nd time in 1876 is also fair more controversial - the popular vote difference was larger, the electoral vote difference was 1, and the situation that leads to it was even worse. The time span between elections where it happens isn't even new (12 years in 1876 and 1888 vs 16 years in 2000 and now). Heck, in 1888 the main election topic was also about tariff policy, does that sound at all familiar?

"Democracy" isn't just some magical pixie dust that can solve all problems, it's a design with a lot of trade offs, and calling things "undemocratic" isn't much of an argument.

Anachronistic: the electoral college arose on account of a number of factors. Consider that the biggest challenger was Congress electing the President, which faces obvious flaws. One of the advantages suggested for the electoral college system was that the single-purpose entity would be less prone to the politics and intrigue of a standing body. Hamilton also argued that the distributed nature of the electoral college would insulate the decision-making process from potential outside influence. It was also seen as an advantage to build a firewall from one state to the next, so that issues in one state would not unduly influence the election. But there was also a measure of elitism to the electoral college, the idea that the political class had more information and greater faculties with which to make the difficult decision.

It's useful to note that Hamilton and Madison argued forcefully against states binding their electors to a single candidate. The assumption previously was that electors would be a respected local figure who could then deliberate thoughtfully, rather than being bound to a particular political party. Maine and Nebraska are the only states still living up to the framers' original intent.

Hair-brained: the previous discussion of the unexpected political effects of the electoral college should be enough to prove this point.

Undemocratic: this is a tough one, since as you pointed out, "democracy isn't some magical pixie dust." However, I think it's fair (at least when discussing the American political system), to situate our various institutions along an axis of democratic to republican. To the democratic end of the spectrum are institutions that provide a direct role for citizens in politics, such as caucuses, referenda, and (ostensibly) the presidency. To the republican end are the representative institutions. Given that the presidency was intended as and is best seen as the most democratic federal institution, it is unfortunate that the manner of election still has this one wrench, where the vast majority of citizens have zero practical impact on the result.