Knowing what the process is like, can you really blame them though?

What should happen is you get a percentage of electoral votes from states instead of a clean sweep like if 40% Californians voted republican then 40% of 55 electoral votes go to them and if 49% voted for democrates in New Hampshire then they get 2 electoral votes each that would be much more closer to true democracy 

It's not as bad as us, though. Finland had a 70% turnout in the most recent parliamentary election, and the 2012 presidential election had a turnout of 73% in the first round and 69% in the second round. Turnout in this past presidential election in the U.S. was only 55%, and the 2014 congressional elections (the "mid-terms" as we call them) was a paltry 35% for lower house elections.

Turnout in the U.S. is well below most other developed nations, probably at least in part due to how the system is largely rigged. While Finland is a unitary republic, the U.S. is a federal republic, and as a result we have a messy electoral patchwork. Not only did notions of federalism in the 1780s result in the horribly unrepresentative Electoral College (they had to get slave states and small states on board), but since states were left to determine things like the boundaries of lower house districts, we have a situation where the majority parties in state governments can gerrymander the districts to guarantee themselves a larger number of safe seats. Also, we have private money being totally unrestricted when introduced into the electoral system. And for the past 150 years certain Americans have continually sought to deprive certain other Americans of the right to vote. Our entire system was based on it being rigged to favor certain factions over others, with little to no accountability.

Evolving notions of democracy need to take us past the electoral systems of the late 18th century. If everyone's vote counted equally, if elections were free from the corrupting influence of private money, if politicians weren't allowed to rig the system, and if people weren't routinely under threat of arbitrary disenfranchisement, then turnout in the U.S. would probably be a lot higher than it is today. I do know that a lot of people sit at home because they believe their state or congressional district is already decided. There is evidence to suggest that turnout is higher in places where elections are routinely competitive.

Trump said he could have won with a national popular vote by campaigning in solid Democratic states to increase turnout. I say he should put his money where his mouth is and actually put that to the test. Have the EC abolished and replaced by a national popular vote, and let's see how well he fares.

I wonder how many of them now regret their decision? 

I know people who don't engage in politics because "they're all the same" but are now acting like Trump is the worst thing to happen to America. 

Pretty much this. It kills votes in states that are all red or all blue. I live in a hardcore red state and its tough to get people to go vote because they know their vote means nothing.

It goes both ways. The left can always rely on CA, NY, and other states open to complete governement control.

In fact, I'd argue the left always has an advantage when they have good candidates. Dems can rely more on highly populated states.

Bad idea ... 

The house of representatives would gain more power to dictate elections in the presence of third party voters ...