Well, yeah. Changing from FPTP would be huge, and it's necessary to deal with the strategic voting issue, but we also have to get rid of the electoral college. Majority rule, popular vote winner wins. Then we get approval, ranked choice, or literally almost anything but FPTP and things start to look sane.

Who do you go to if you're a Democrat but the Republican won?

You mean your vote? At the risk of misunderstanding you, your vote goes into the Popular bucket with everyone else's, and whoever wins that vote wins. Why does it need to be more complicated than that? The voting itself can be more nuanced than FPTP, but ultimately there's (ideally) a mostly-Condorcet winner, and that's the winner.

I suspect you're thinking more about Congress than the single-seat Presidency, where There Can Be Only One. Or I'm utterly missing your point. That's easily possible. Give me three choices of topics, and I'll rank them in the order I think we're discussing.

PS, I tacked on to their comment because it was specifically about the second-to-last point, wanting their vote to count. I thought it fell a little short as it didn't address the fact that, if your live in a metropolis, odds are your votes mean less that others in rural environments. I hear you focusing on better proportional representation - anarchists getting a seat, however small, at the table with the Big Parties. I was focusing obviously on the fact that we do not have equal representation by virtue of 70 Oklahoman votes having as much weight as 100 Californian votes (I made those ratios up; I don't know the exact proportion).