Remember There's No Mandate: Clinton got 59,755,284 votes, Trump Only Got 59,535,522*

Popular vote 2000 Bush = 50,456,002  Gore= 50,999,897

*The actual popular vote for 2016 will still change as absentee ballots continue to be counted, but it's important to remember when Trump supporters talk about a mandate, that the majority of the voters picked Clinton.

The world would be a spectacularly different place had Gore won - we'd have been much further along on the most important issue facing the world, climate change for one thing.  The same is true in this election.

Trump warned us that the election was rigged.  The electoral college is one of the ways that the election is rigged.  (But, let's be honest, if Clinton had won the electoral college, but not the popular vote, Democrats wouldn't be complaining.  Though I suspect the Trump supporters would be in the streets much more aggressively than Clinton supporters are.)

But there is something you can do about this.  There's a movement to make the electoral college irrelevant.  From the Daily Kos:

"Eliminating the Electoral College does not even require a constitutional amendment. An effort known as The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote. Once states totaling 270 electoral votes join the compact--which only requires passing state laws-- then the next presidential election will be determined the the popular vote, not the Electoral College.
As of November 9, 2016, ten states and the District of Columbia have signed the compact, totaling 165 electoral votes. So, we are already over 60% of the way there. If we can make this a national issue now, and if Democrats can do well at the state level in the 2018 midterm elections (which could happen under President Trump), then the winner of 2020 presidential election will be determined by popular vote."

But there are no simple solutions, as Trump and his supporters are soon to find out,  and as  Nate Silver pointed out in a Five Thirtyeight article in 2011.  He argues that the money follows the important votes and with the electoral college as the important vote, political money is focused on swing states.  If the electoral college no longer existed, that money would be spent trying to get the popular vote instead.  So, he suggests, Bush might have spent his money to win the popular vote instead of the swing states.

And let's remember that the states still are relatively autonomous.  According to the LA Times, Californians still believe in collectively making their state a better place to live:

"[California] Voters embraced $94 million per year for parks, $1.2 billion to house the city’s homeless, $3.3 billion for community college facilities and a stunning $120 billion to pay for subways, light rail lines and other transit projects over 40 years. Those measures, backers say, will help Los Angeles tackle two of its most intractable problems — traffic and homelessness — and potentially reshape the region."