I am wondering if this is more of a sign that the whole way of picking leaders is broken. Apparently he was voted in by less than a quarter of eligible voters. So he is only representing a small percentage of the population, so what he is doing is hardly a mandate based on those numbers. Although he did win fair and square based on the way the system works. But surely he should also be working on the fact that more actual people voted for Hillary and her ideas, so shouldn't he be basing his decisions on that as well, if he is working for all the people, not just the people who voted him in?
But we have the same thing happening in NZ, with mayors are getting voted in with the same types of numbers. It is all due to the low voter turnout, due to people being disenfranchised with the entire process and system. So maybe we need to look at the entire system, and whether voting should be compulsory like it is in Oz. Although they are hardly a poster child.
This happens all the time in many places. I've noticed any number of UK elections where the government of the day was selected by fewer than half the eligible voters, for example. Blair's 97 "landslide" was won by 42.3% of the votes of 71% of voters.
Compulsory voting looks like the obvious solution, but whilst that will increase turnout, will it result in just a pile of spoiled ballots?