I see the vote as: "less than 30% were willing to make the effort to vote for each one of the 2 main candidates", which is very close to a breakdown in german history - just from numbers alone. The trend since WWII sees declining voter turnout across all western countries. I think more checks and balances should be added (armchair general me ponders a maximum term length of 8 years as is now, but perhaps a term shortening if not a certain % of ELIGIBLE vote is reached, balanced by allowing more than 2 terms if some are shortened...).

I think that they should require all eligible voters to vote by making it against the law not to vote :)

I realize stateside is a larger interest in "winning" than over here. But the "winner takes all" modus of current electoral method leads to skewed voter turnout (following up quick googling only since mid-nineties and less% than I expected) which I think is bad in the long run.
Change the rules to make R votes in NY count at least a bit and D votes in Texas as well - perhaps by adding a "winner" bonus to delegate distribution, but make it reflect at least some of the votes cast for the candidate not on first place.

I agree. Andy and I did an intensive analysis on the number and one of our findings was that even if the electoral votes were assigned proportionally instead of "winner take all" Trump still would have won.