to be fair she won the popular by 3m, they just happened to be inefficient votes.
She skipped out on campaigning in several states that flipped for Trump, and didn't really do much to address her (un)likeability.
Edit - the US election is won or lost on electoral votes, not the popular vote. You play to win within the rules, not to make excuses.
It seems likely to me that it wasn't her pollsters from all those elections that were the weakness, but the candidate, who has a strong loyal base within the party, limited ability to hold on to votes that initially lean her way that aren't part of that base, and basically no ability (in part because of hardened negative opinions on a large segment of the electorate) to swing opposed or uncommitted voters.
Not sure where you're getting your information from... but get it from somewhere else.
In fact, virtually no Western democracy chooses its leader on the basis of a popular vote (I believe there are a few exceptions).
It's sophistry to even bring it up.
I mean, sorry to step on your narrative by pointing out this basic fact.
You guys do know that even if our government operated like Canada, or Sweden, or any of the other countries you profess to admire, that Hillary Clinton still wouldn't be President, right? In fact, under a parliamentary system, the President would be chosen by insider dealing between party hacks like McConnell, Ryan, etc.
That just transfers the gerrymandering power from elected officials (who can be thrown out if they annoy the voters enough) to whoever gets appointed to an unelected "independent organization" (which can't be thrown out by the voters).
In practice, this "independent organization" is appointed by the Canadian parliament (i.e., by the political parties), so it is "independent" in name only.
To expand a bit, the very notion of an "independent organization" seems questionable. Who will make up this organization?
Career civil servants? They will be biased toward whichever party proposes to spend more money on civil servants.
Appointees by whichever party controls parliament (as appears to be the case in Canada)? The problem there should be obvious.
Proportional appointment on the basis of election results? Biased toward the major parties at the expense of minority parties.
And so on.
Not even a blind grid system is immune -- in that case where you set the origin of the grid can have a major effect.