To alter the drift of the comments...
In the article the author said that the election was decided by less than one percent of the vote.
you either do not, or choose not, to understand the US system.
1. There were about 5 pc of votes cast for other candidates. Thus the majority of votes were cast against HRC, the majority of votes were cast against DJT. Since we don't have a parliamentary system, there can't be a government formed by coalition.
2. If we had a popular vote system, we would still be counting votes and disputing vote totals.
3. You play by the rules as they are laid out. Neither HRC nor DJT campaigned in the strong single-party states of NY, California, Oregon, Alabama, Tennessee, and others.
4. The electoral college system is a part of the US constitution to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The confederation of states in 1787 feared their voices would be lost due to large single-party urban areas, hence the US Senate with two members per state and the electoral college.
5. In an example I heard yesterday, in the 1960 US baseball championship, a seven game event, is decided by the winner of four games, the losing team scored a total of 55 runs while the winning team scored 27 runs. Should the total number of runs decide the outcome? That's not what the rules say.
Don't like the rules? Then persuade 3/4 of the states to change them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
