[lambda]

> almost the majority

Trump was not elected by a "majority of Americans". He was not even elected by a majority of Americans who voted. In fact, he did not even win by a plurality of Americans who voted.

Because of weirdness of the way the Presidential election process works in the US, it's possible to win the election with fewer votes than your opponent; you just need a majority of electors, but most states allocate electors in a winner-takes-all fashion.

> there should be such travel restrictions

Voting for someone does not mean that you agree with all of their policies. It's possible that a large number of Americans disagreed with those policies, but preferred other policies Trump held over Clinton, like lowering taxes and reducing regulations. Or that enough people were sufficiently uncomfortable with a woman as president. Or that enough people were convinced by the combination of Clinton conspiracy theories with the email scandal.

[dragonwriter]

> but most states allocate electors in a winner-takes-all fashion.

And, while there is a positive relationship between population and elector count, electors aren't even assigned proportional to population, so even if each state assigned electors proprtionately to the vote, you could still win with less votes than an opponent if your support is concentrated on low-population states.