But that doesn’t answer the question I have: how can an “elector” in Pennsylvania say to Pennsylvanians that “..it doesn’t matter if more of you voted to elect a Republican; the Democrat got higher votes in other states (of course, I as a Pennsylvania elector have no idea if the “popular vote count” is accurate from other states), and I also have no idea how I can verify that vote count from other states - but I need to adhere to that because all of your votes are now just my vote. Your voting really doesn’t matter. Only the people in really populous states matter, so I’m going with them”.
How is that not a nullification of every voter in the state??
I’m not sure how any votes are “nullified.” Under the Constitution, the only people who get to vote for President are the electors. While presidential candidates may appear on your ballot, you are voting for a slate of electors who may or may not be purportedly bound to vote for that particular candidate. You don’t have a vote for president that can be “nullified.”
In early Presidential elections, the presidential candidates’ names did not even appear on the ballot, if there was any sort of popular vote at all. Electors were appointed by the state legislature in several states. State legislatures could go back to that today if they wanted to. Or, as arrogantsob said, they could choose electors by lottery or any other way they wish.
Some states’ laws purport to bind electors to vote for a particular candidate. But it is not at all clear whether those laws are enforceable under the Constitution. Of course, it is also unclear whether a law binding an elector to vote for the “national popular vote” winner would be enforceable. What would stop one of those Pennsylvania electors from ignoring the Pennsylvania law and just voting for whoever he wants to?
The “popular vote” is a fiction and does not even bind an elector so there is no nullification.