If there is no appetite to change it, my railing against it is doubly foolish as it doesn't even affect me, I suppose...

Having said that, I don't really know what to say about your last statement as it seems to me that if you're getting together a mandate for a democratically elected representative of a geographic area, then there shouldn't be power-access discrapancies over that area. It's quite different if you're only electing representatives for that area, obviously.

"They just are." - Well, that's exactly what I was saying! Support for a process solely through familiarity!

As each state is putting forth their bit of mandate for the same position (the presidency) then their process for doing so ought to be the same, no? Otherwise it's not fair! I'm sorry but I don't know how else to say it, it seems so intuitively obvious to me. If not the same, why not? Why should it be harder for Florida to get behind a candidate than Tennessee?

I don't know if this will mean anything to you but if we had different access processes for parliamentary candidates across the UK, people woud be up in arms about it!

Isn't there perhaps a movement in the States that wishes to homogenise ballot access?

The advantage of homogenous system is that it's difficult to exploit and game the system, for one thing.