I'm not an American so the electoral college is completely alien to me but what you're saying is basically that you disagree with the entire point of having the electoral college.
Clinton lost in almost every state. The reason she won the popular vote (which, again, doesn't matter in the presidential election) is that she won in some of the states with the highest population, like California. Yes, this means she won more people over, but they still only represent a fraction of the demographics.
The electoral college has obvious flaws like swing states being the primary concern of candidates during much of their campaigns. But it's important to understand that without the electoral college there would be other problems, specifically the most populous states practically deciding the election.
So either way it's unfair: either it's unfair to a large portion of the overall population by putting states above people, or it's unfair to a large number of states by putting population above state rights.
It's really a question of what the US wants to be. Do you want to be an alliance of sovereign states united under a federal government, or do you want to be a singular nation with a central government that delegates to the individual states for bureaucratic reasons?
It seems a lot of Americans say they want the former but secretly think they have the latter. A weighted state-based system will always result in "undemocratic" results like the 2016 election, a direct vote will always be unfair to smaller states. You can't have it both ways.
In my opinion the electoral college should be abolished and the US elections (all of them) should be reformed in a way that no longer necessitates a two-party system but in practice state rights are an important issue to Americans.
The US motto may be "e pluribus unum" but that doesn't mean the political landscape can be treated as a homogeneous playing field.
Nobody is claiming that Trump's win is illegitimate due to the electoral vs. popular mismatch, but it's clear that something is seriously wrong when a candidate can win an election by several million votes and still lose the presidency. If I were a Democrat, I'd be even more annoyed that my party had won the popular vote four times in the 21st Century and only won the presidency twice.
I think the obvious answer is to increase the number of representatives in the House. Wyoming residents currently have 3x the influence in presidential elections as people from Texas, which is seriously askew given the relative power of the two.