Thanks, Will H, for the thoughtful comment (which, in addition to being correspondingly thought-provoking, also happened to reveal a coding error making comments on this type of post unreadable on my phone).
Not sure how the process you describe lands us on the Right, however, since the process itself is Whig history, classically on the Left or, as later, "progressive." So, even if the process itself somehow favors the Right, the presumption is of an under- and overlying Left/progressive tendency. Specifically in regard to voting rights, extension of the franchise has been a demand against whichever powers that were, even if the King and the People may have been from other perspectives or in other epochs allies vs. the lesser nobility and the church, and even if the further-Left has critiqued the vote itself.
A realignment based on the general trend is still resisted by the American Right for different, possibly complementary reasons. The Democrats consistently support extending the vote or ease of voting, and tend to support the popular voting and proportional representation. You might say that friction over the general trend favors the Right in a certain sense, in that it leads to greater intensity of feeling on the part of those who perceive a threat to their positions of relative privilege, but the victories of shrinking minorities over increasing majorities are unlikely to last forever, and defending for too long or too fiercely may make the eventual winners less forgiving.
But I'm not really sure what this all has to do with Trump specifically.
Trusting pollsters on their predictions and trusting the "mainstream media" to attempt to report on events somewhat objectively strike me as different if not, in people's political imaginations, wholly unrelated things.
The question of high trust vs low trust societies is something similar: I'm on friendly terms with a Trump-supporting neighbor - he had a big MAGA flag, no mere banner, waving from above his garage. He seems like a genuinely good guy. I'd be inclined to trust him on any number of things important to me, to make good on his promises, and so on, up to and including mutual defense in case of Red Dawn or War of the Worlds...
Except there is no external enemy to unite us, and for that matter we have no personal/private dealings in common. I just see Pete and his wife Sandra and his dogs Dallas and Rosie on my walks. (Come to think of it, I even have a picture of his MAGA flag, and will have to post it some time.) I've declined to inform Pete of my views on Minority President Degenerate Alt-Right Russian Troll.
From the Founding and forward, our oxymoronical state of states has had difficulty with how and to what degree to unite, and, if the problem decreases as we reach nearer the ground truth of neighborhoods, it still remains part of the human condition in general, and all the more so in a society that depends on trust for commerce, but depends on epistemological individualism for everything else.
I'll just cut to the chase: If we don't have or perceive a reason to stick together, then we will tend to divide at least until the costs of division accumulate sufficiently to motivate another reversal, but this pendulum swinging affair entails friction and loss as well as a sense of general paralysis that must sooner or later give way to something else.