The difference between this and Brexit is that more people voted for Brexit than against it, while more people voted for Hillary than for Trump.
BTW the estimated popular vote is between 0.7 and 1.3% in Hillary's favor at this point , according to NYT http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president . Not really a big difference.
Phrased differently, Democrats have won the popular vote in 4/5 of the most recent elections but only won office in two of them. In the 21st century, winning the most votes for president only results in a 50% success rate for Democratic presidential candidates.
If you want a counter-example, you can look at small town and rural upstate NY and realize how their concerns are always neglected because the sheer number of NYC voters drowns out any chance they have to be heard as part of the electorate.
Well, no, because it was designed this way. Popular vote is the obvious option when designing a democracy. They decided to go with something else under the specific understanding that any system other than a popular vote would allow this to happen.
> In the 21st century, winning the most votes for president only results in a 50% success rate for Democratic presidential candidates.
It will always affect Democratic candidates more negatively because they don't do as well with rural voters and the electoral college exists almost specifically to give rural voters more power. This is by design--not an oversight or misunderstanding.