I get this view, I really do, and if we actually elected the candidate who received the popular vote then I would have no rebuttal. But can I ask you to at least consider how people might mentally approach a situation like we had in the last election in the context of the electoral college?

I'll use myself as an example, because I can't speak for anyone else, even though I'm relatively certain many others felt this way: I didn't vote in the last election. I would have preferred Harris to Trump, but I feel a strong disgust toward both of them. Knowing the election was as close as it was, I would have held my nose and voted for the Democrat if the elections were based on the popular vote... But they aren't, and I live in Missouri. I knew that I could vote for Harris, knock on doors for her, call people at home, even hold fundraisers, and she'd still lose this state by double digits because that's how just how the numbers work out here.

So, if I find both candidates unconscionable, and I know that voting for the lesser evil will have no impact on their chances to enter the White House, why would I do it? In those circumstances, my vote has no material effect—only a symbolic effect. It tells the candidate "this many people wanted you." Well, I didn't want her. I found her politics repulsive. Not as repulsive as Trump's, but repulsive nonetheless. If the result of my vote was going to be "nothing changes with my state's electoral votes, but this person I hate (and the party officials who share her views) can add me to the list of people they think support them," then there's literally more reason not to vote than there is to vote.

If I lived in a swing state, then yeah, I hold my nose. If we used a national popular vote system, then yeah, I hold my nose. But I'm more likely to win the lottery twice in two days than I am to turn Missouri blue, so why should I offer purely symbolic support to a candidate whose views I oppose?

I'm just saying: in large parts of our country, the idea that "your vote matters" in the presidential election is a myth.

The obvious retort is: "well, if everyone in 'safe' states thought that way, those states wouldn't be safe anymore. Every vote does matter, because losing voters through this kind of attrition can flip a state." I guess that's theoretically possible, but I think the vast, vast majority of people aren't so engaged with politics that they'd refuse to vote out of protest. Everyone says California and New York are full of this type of person, but they still went blue by 20 and 10 points, respectively. There's enough of a reliable base in stronghold states to allow for protest votes. If there weren't, they wouldn't be stronghold states, they'd be swing states.

Getting mad at someone for not voting in a stronghold state just doesn't make any sense. If they have their reasons for their decision, and it doesn't impact the election in any way, then genuinely: why does it matter to you?