To make the act of voting something interesting enough to consider we would need far smaller communities (max. 1000 inhabitants) whose leaders would need to be the ultimate souvereign of this community. In such a system of city states it would be possible for the population to know their nominees for certain offices, it would be possible to involve oneself in politics and so on. It would be a bit like Athenian Democrazy under the right conditions then
But as there are cities with millions of inhabitants already we cannot hope for that to happen. But we should neither make ourself believe that voting for one or another candidat would change anything. Modern democrazy is a system which allowed lobbyism to become the ruling power. It's oil industry and arms industry that has far more influence on politics (no matter who gets voted as President cause there are enough other politics that can be corrupted) than any vote.
Obama for example has been someone with virtues that arer not in the interst of many companies and he failed to bring his ideas of change to life mainly because of the resistance of lobbyists.
Many other examples like the European Union which is blackmailed by economy show how less democratic leaders or parlaments can actually decide.
With or without the voting people the economy in the end decides what is to be done and what not. In fact I believe it would be far more effective if we were meant to vote for a president who gains all power for 4 years and who could at least use all powers the state offers to decide for the state's interests and if necessary against the will of companies. It's ultra-not-democratical but at least it would gain political independence from economic giants of oil industry, arms industry and others.