To my shame, I started with a low-effort comment instead of fleshing out what I meant, but there are several more (and more powerful) difficulties regarding the election system than simply "people are lazy/can't make it to the polls". I won't get into details until I need to, but a bullet point list of the additional problems that must be resolved in order to stop the process from feeling "pointless" is as follows:

1. First-past-the-post/winner-take-all voting system. This essentially guarantees that third party candidates will never be chosen (due to the presence of the Spoiler Effect), and that the winning candidate will rarely represent more than a small fraction of the actual voting population. Even if asses were forced out of seats, they will likely feel unable to vote for the candidate who matters to them. The problem of the voting system must be resolved.

2. "Statistical" insignificance. Not referring to actual statistical insignificance, a reasonable person can calculate the difference between the time/resources spent going to vote and expected rewards from that activity (chance that their vote will decide the election + chance of the outcome having a significant positive impact according to their initial political preferences), and the time/resources spent, for example, playing the lottery. If their resource:reward ratio in playing the lottery is more favorable than the same ratio in a general election, you can be sure many people would feel like the general election is at least as pointless -- if not more so -- for the same reasons. The problem of insignificance must be resolved.

3. Gerrymandering. For huge segments of the US, your vote literally does not matter for the general election even in that tiny statistical sense. This is because the US is divided up into voting districts, where the majority of votes in a district decide the entire district's "vote". This means that depending on how the districts are carved up (which they are, into abominable, exploitative patterns), these majorities can be greatly manipulated. If you're a Democrat in many areas of Texas, or a Republican in many areas of California, your vote will have a net effect of zero by default if you live in a district with a different majority. You could have 40% of a country's population be conservative, and 60% progressive, and as long as the districts are drawn such that this 60-40 ratio is preserved in all of the districts, every district vote will come up progressive, leaving almost half the nation entirely unrepresented. Obviously, if your vote does not even matter because other people in your local area happen to think differently to you, this can and will contribute to a feeling of pointlessness. You have to solve the problem of gerrymandering.

4. Even assuming people aren't dissuaded by the feeling of general insignificance, by the seeming impenetrability of the winner-take-all voting structure, or by the awful reality of gerrymandering, there is still another big problem to overcome, and that is the problem of voter ignorance. There is a real argument to be made that without an amount of education and diligence far outweighing the expected benefits of a perfect democratic election (one which lacks all of the aforementioned issues), voters will still not be able to make a truly rational choice, or a choice in their own best interests. The way to exemplify the reality of this problem is by asking any given person "What are the last votes that your congressional representatives made?" I will be stunned if they could answer for either state or national-level politics unless they work in politics or political media themselves (maybe not even then). But far beyond this, in order to make a decision not out of ignorance, they need solid personal knowledge on a wide variety of topics like economics, technology, ethics/philosophy, many of the sciences, current events, etc. Things which the...