[debatem1]

I'm not sure where to go with this, honestly.

From an electoral perspective it's counterfactual: my family in the midwest have roughly 1.5x the electoral power I do. Historically speaking this has led two democrats in my lifetime to win the popular vote but lose the presidential election. So I don't think there's an issue with those voices being unheard in elections-- quite the opposite in fact.

On the other hand, I see where you're coming from. The loci of money and power in the United States speak loudly and listen poorly to the half of us that see stars at night. I think this has been to conservatives' advantage, although that seems to have more to do with preexisting cultural affinity than shared policy goals.

[pitaj]

Does winning the popular vote mean anything under the current system? It's not hard to assume that many people would vote very differently if the electoral college wasn't involved. For instance, left-leaning people might vote more often in red states, and right-leaning voters in blue states would do the same.

[TylerE]

No, the popular vote means nothing.

In fact, states aren't even required to put the presidential on the ballot at all. States are allowed to choose their electors by any method the state legislature decides on.

[astura]

Don't forget- there's 4 million Americans who are ineligible to vote for president due to the fact that they live in territories, not states (and DC since 1961).

[debatem1]

Only inside of individual districts-- eg, a senate race is a statewide popular contest. There are no federal popular vote contests in the US (although there is some momentum towards reform in that regard).

I'm not sure that the average voter really considers the electoral college today. Voter comprehension of it has historically been very low, at least. But you're right that many non-swing-state voters stay home after (correctly) figuring out that their votes are meaningless.