What makes you assume that if we went by the popular vote we would have had the same vote totals? You change the method of elections, you also change the incentives of the voters and the candidates. With the electoral collage, what reason would a Republican voter in California even have to bother showing up at the polls? (Also true for Illinois, New England, New York, etc.) You switch to a popular vote, and suddenly Republicans in those states have a lot of incentive to vote! Not enough to flip the states, but if you're counting the national total, but quite possibly enough to overcome Hilldog's popular lead, which primarily came from California.
If you discount California, in the remaining states Trump won the popular vote by almost 2 million. Perhaps we should just let California decide who the president should be?
You've also changed the incentives for the candidates. Trump didn't spend a nickel or a minute in California. Do you think he would have ignored it if he knew that votes for him there would actually count for him?
Let's also keep in mind that "state" is not a synonym for "provence". Technically, the US is a federation, much as the EU is. The states are limited sovereigns. I'll buy that the US should decide national offices by popular vote when you can convince the EU to do the same. Good luck with that!
The whinging about "It's not fair! We was robbed!" Every time a Democrat looses an election is getting pretty tiresome.