From my perspective, everything that's wrong with the FPTP voting system in the UK is wrong with knobs on in the US.
I mean, find yourself living in a Tory or Labour stronghold in Britain, and your vote is ultimately pretty pointless because there are enough people in your constituency who would vote for a monkey that was wearing a red/blue rosette to render you vote irrelevant. And voting for the Lib Dems in most seats, the Greens anywhere but Brighton, and any other party just about anywhere is really nothing more than a protest vote. But at least Britain is divided up into small enough chunks that the number of disenfranchised voters is at least somewhat minimized.
In the US, presidential and senate votes happen on a state-by-state basis, and I believe Maine and Nebraska are the only states that don't operate on a simple statewide FPTP system - and there's at least a dozen states with a population of more than 8 million people. With the inevitable result that turnouts are usually low (because why bother voting in California or Alabama when you already know what the result is going to be?) and even in swing states, people have a strong tendency to silo ('No-one can win other than the Dems and the GOP, so I'm wasting my vote if I go for anyone else')
Unless and until more states follow Maine's eminently sensible lead and adopt some form of transferable vote system - meaning that a socialist can actually vote for a minority party candidate who most closely matches what they believe in, without thinking in the back of their mind that by not voting for the Democrat they might be helping Trump (and vice versa for conscientious conservatives) - nothing is going to change here.