This is technically correct. Less accurate, but implied, is that a majority of voters wanted a different president. That may be the case, but the evidence is not sufficient to confirm or reject it.
First off is that turnout is very low relative to the number of eligible voters. Secondly is that the electoral college and states' decision to only do "all-or-nothing" apportionment means that it's a totally rational decision to stay home if your state is not close, since your vote has no chance of affecting the election besides the value of signalling that opposition to the consensus exists.
If Lessig's scheme [1] works out to break the winner-take-all apportionment, we could at least start to see some meaningful turnouts because the battle for a single electoral vote can be a close contest. More likely to succeed by less interesting (because your vote does not contribute to a single outcome but just to the collective) we have the interstate compact [2], which this year has made good progress towards achieving a majority.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
I'm a firm believer US ballots are way too broad and have people direct electing (almost always first past the post) way too many positions, especially esoteric and irreverent ones like justices, sheriffs, school boards, etc. For representative democracy to legitimately work we need people electing representatives to appoint and delegate the responsibilities of government on their behalf, because of those that actually do vote (only about 60% of voting age peoples do) 99% don't actually vet individual candidates for every one of the 12+ direct elections they are participating in on the ballot every year.
Even when I try to do that, information on these esoteric position candidates is so sparse and I'm so hugely unqualified to judge what makes a good district magistrate or police chief its mostly a waste of time - I end up going off very limited information on anyone running, often people running without opponents, for positions whose function I cannot fully understand because specialization for my locality on whatever they do isn't readily available.
That is a fully intentional design, though. Both parties have it in their self interest to bloat the ballot with tons of esoteric positions so voters feel choice paralysis and fatigue and just start voting party line en masse without actually auditing the people they are actually electing.
Its a mockery of democracy and republicanism, though. I should be voting for a professional representative to make these decisions on my behalf in forum, and if I did only have a, preferably, singular elected role I vote for with multiple winners where I just need to judge all the candidates for that one function whom I could then rank at the ballot people would be much less privy to falling under the total influence of party lines when voting. Which, being against the interest of the ruling duopoly, would never practically happen anywhere except where the demographics are so skewed in favor of one or the other they are nigh guaranteed to win anyway.
By definition a party loyalist is not a deliberative person, as described in Federalist 68. And further, party loyalists are the people most centrally located in bitter partisanship, the very thing that lends itself to "cabal, intrigue, and corruption" referred to as things most to be avoided, in Federalist 68.
We have all permitted this perversion of something that, despite its also racist past, could actually be useful but is instead detrimental. The Electoral College could play a role if we were serious, but Americans right now take their TV shows more seriously.
Bicameral parliamentary systems are even less prone to this since the prime minister is elected by the ruling coalition. But they have other problems.
2. All systems will be gamed.
3. The people are not the players, they are the chips.
Its all hyperbole overshadowing the root problem - first past the post non-proportional elections are hugely undemocratic. You need proportional legislatures where you have both multiple winners per race for better proportional distribution and alternate votes to first past the post regardless of what they are - STV, ranked choice, IRV, etc. Anything is better than what we have now.
What we really need is approval voting / range voting. First past the post creates polarization because it causes there to be two parties and requires every issue to be bifurcated into on of those two boxes, and if your preferences don't all perfectly align with party lines then welcome to hell.
But the problem with proportional representation systems is that they would require flipping over the table in the US. Senators are from specific states, Congressmen are from specific districts, and that part of the system isn't the broken part, it's actually helpful -- if your state or district has a specific problem then you have a specific person who actually cares about it because your vote matters more to them than the vote of someone else in some other place.
But apply range voting to the same districts and states and you don't end up with a two party system, because two very similar candidates no longer split the vote with each other. Then anybody who can represent a given district or state better than the incumbent can win the election regardless of party affiliation, and you're no longer stuck choosing between two party platforms because now there are twelve.
What we really need is for everyone to vote.
Or, for nobody to vote, which would trigger chaos. As Mel Brooks said, "Out of chaos, comes order."
If the people who currently vote are a representative sample of all people eligible to vote, this would change nothing at all.
They're not, so what would end up happening is that both parties would spend more time pandering to the people who currently could vote but don't, the additional votes would end up split evenly between the two parties and the difference from the status quo would be modest at best.
First past the post creates a polarized two party system independent of what percentage of the population votes.
> Or, for nobody to vote, which would trigger chaos.
That would never happen because the fewer people who vote the more incentive there is for anyone go to vote, because your vote counts more when other people don't.
It's more effective in general to cast a protest vote for a third party you know won't win than to stay home -- especially since they often need a certain percentage of the vote for ballot access or public financing. And if enough people do that then the third party actually wins. Then ideally they can do away with first past the post.
This is squarely in the territory of religion.
People in dense urban areas should not have a dictatorial say in what those who live in rural areas do.
If democracies like the USA (Canada has a similar problem) simply counted the votes, the majority of the country would be happier with the outcome. From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a good thing.
"U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area"
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33....
The developed world is becoming more urban because we do not need that many people in the rural industries any more. It's that simple. Fighting for their 'rights' just makes the country non-competitive. We need to actively incentivize and assist those in rural areas find a way of life where the economy is actually happening.
As it is I could have a substantial unequal share in representative interest moving to a sparsely populated state than I would living in a major metro area. There is absolutely no way to consider that as anything other than a mockery of democracy.
It’s an artifact of the original founding of the country where there were checks and balances put in place to deny direct democratic rule.
It’s been slowly rolled back over many years, but until we get rid of the electoral college, it always has the possibility of ignoring the will of the people.