Just because mob mentality vote says X candidate wins means little. Especially if we were to hold to the initial representation in the constitution of 30k people per representative. But that number has ossified at 535 for how long now?
I'm never quite sure what people who make these kinds of arguments as you did are attempting or hoping to achieve. It's trivially impossible to represent every single viewpoint within a constituency with anything other than direct voting. So that's fine if you want to advocate for direct voting, but just come out and say it. Otherwise, any other system involves intermediate representation, which will then have this exact problem.
You can approximate it much better than FPTP does by any system which produces more proprotional results, which is just about any system of democratic representation you don't deliberately try to make worse; FPTP for legislative seats is pretty much the bubble sort of election methods.
I'm sitting with a -3 on my main post, and I still believe my points are still valid. I live in a liberal city in Indiana, and the republicans have gerrymandered us down the middle to split our votes to 2 different republican districts. Prior to 2010, we had better representation and would get more moderate republicans or democrats. No longer.
So how is this at all justifiable?
Further, even if Trump had won the popular vote, your floated premise would remain: the popular vote only represented a modest minority fraction of all adults in the US. So how can that possibly represent the actual full will of The People?
Regardless, history has proven on countless occasions that the will of the people is not always the ideal thing to follow. The Bill of Rights exists precisely to protect the minority from the all-too-often irrational will of the people. (you'll note that I specifically didn't justify the current state of affairs in US politics as being somehow good or positive, I'll pre-empt that conflation)
Perhaps a method for measuring this is needed. A way to evaluate a representative based on the merits they've shown.
It'd be amazing/nonsensical to believe that the entire system works on blind trust alone but it seems so, aside from journalists' reports.
That 30,000 number was decided before many advancements allowing for much higher population densities. London had a population of around one million in its first census in 1801. That's 33 representatives. New York City alone now has around 8.5 million people, or 285 representatives. The entire US would be 10820...
And with newer tech, like the Internet (which was an academic curiosity when the 535 rule was enacted) can now easily network 11k representatives. There's now very little reason to meet physically in a room. Especially if we value transparency.
I'd like to see that there is an effective communication going on between citizens and their representatives.
Right now, with the current system, I see a few ways to communicate.
Physical letter: form letter or nothing
Phone: automated system recording
Email: form letter or auto-subscribed to email list
Facebook: Ignored, form statement, or banned
Twitter: Ignored, form statement, or banned
With a contention ratio of 30k to 50k/rep, would make meeting your representative much more likely. It would also reduce money effects, since now elections are a local thing instead of a moneyball contest.
I've commented on this before; I'll just link those instead of repeating myself: