Ok, this one is a bit complex, but the article linked below is worth reading because it deals with voting and the impact your vote has on elections.
The article was prompted by the U. S. Supreme Court decision last week that electors in a state must vote for the presidential candidate for whom they are pledged to vote. In other words, if you are an elector in Wisconsin (remember these electors are the ones who really vote for the president, not you and me) and you are pledged to vote for Joe Biden, you cannot decide at the last moment to switch to say Bernie Sanders.
So the court’s decision has to do with the Electoral College and how the electors actually vote.
But it also may have had something to do with the concept of the national popular vote, which could be a way to do away with the Electoral College. As you are probably acutely aware, as things stand now, a candidate for president could win the national popular vote, by say three million votes, but lose the election because they did not get enough Electoral College votes. Sound far-fetched? Nope, it could happen (wink, wink).
So, what is this national popular vote thing? Well, read the New York Times article and then check out this website. The national popular vote, a concept endorsed by such radial groups of the League of Women Voters, may be closer than you think.