The nationwide popular vote is irrelevant, and always has been.

The US Presidential Election is not decided by YOUR vote. Although it says "Trump" or "Biden" on your ballot, your vote decides who represents your State in the Electoral College.

The Electors decide the Pres.

The Founding Fathers understood that it's not possible to count the popular vote, and I doubt they ever trusted the voters, anyway.

But you CAN count 538 Electoral Votes, so the College provides a safeguard against fraud, panic, mania, and the madness of crowds.

The Great Compromise that resulted in our bicameral legislative branch is a partial solution to the greatest problem of democracy: protection of the rights of the minority.

Each State administers its own process for selecting Electors. Although the US Supreme Court decided the 2000 election (Florida), they first rejected the case, sending it back to the Florida Supreme Court in a unanimous, 9-0 decision.

Because States have extraordinary leeway in writing their own election rules, lawsuits in Federal court must argue that State processes violate the US Constitution.

That's a high burden of proof.

The Electors in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and everywhere other State will be determined by processes and politics particular to those States.

Decentralization of the selection of Electors allows States to experiment, to screw up, and to innovate, while the Electors themselves provide the safeguard of human judgment.

Constitutional limits on the powers of the Executive Branch are intended to minimize the damage that any single President could enact, anyway.

As the powers of the President have been expanded (e.g., wars undeclared by Congress, spending authorization unapproved by Congress, promulgation of regulations & orders with the effect of law), the risks of Presidential malfeasance have increased.

Iraq The Sequel (This Time Its Personal) was a harbinger of Presidential abuse, despite Congressional authorization. Since 2002, more significant and expensive military actions have been prosecuted without Congressional approval.

One thing @realDonaldTrump did was weaken the powers of the President, in some cases by ignoring them.

The problem of a weak central government is that increases the cost of large scale business. And increased costs for large corporations means less profit-sharing for corporate executives.

The problem of strong central government is that it increases political risks.

The European Union, the United Nations, the Climate Change Movement, and all the institutions that emerged to prevent recurrence of the atrocious wars and abuses of the 20th century have the convenient side effect of facilitating global commerce.

The antitrust actions against Big Tech in Europe are an attempt to decouple political cooperation from economic consolidation.

Brexit is an attempt to reverse the political trend towards globalization.

COVID hysteria serves the Globalist agenda to consolidate of political power in the politicians that can be bought by global corporations, to extend markets across international boundaries, to further capture economies of scale.

The one thing that all Silicon Valley founders agree on is that you have to get to scale, fast. Anything that increases the cost of scale is an existential threat to a Silicon Valley unicorn.

Trump is the biggest threat to Silicon Valley since Steve Ballmer, but its not just Trump.

As @PeterZeihan points out, the US is pulling away from the rest of the world, and that trend isn't going to reverse no matter who is elected President.

COVID hysteria provides a temporary bolus of moralistic centralization by activating the primal Us Against Them tribalism that was once the purview of religion.

It won't last.

There is a popular impression that the US is coming apart at the seams, and that the struggle for the powers concentrated in the Executive Office will plunge us into Civil War.

Another way to go is to dismantle those centralized powers, leaving us with little left to fight for.