Yep. There are a lot of things in the US political system that give states with lower populations more representation per capita than states with greater popula

Yep. There are a lot of things in the US political system that give states with lower populations more representation per capita than states with greater populations, and the electoral college is one of them and perhaps the most egregious, given that we're long past the time when it made sense to fear that US presidents would prioritize their home state over the country, if that was ever a concern. The Senate is the most extreme example- every state gets two Senators. So Rhode Island and Wyoming have just as much representation in the Senate as California and Texas, despite having ~30x the population. Of course that's the whole point of the Senate, to counterbalance the representation-by-population of the House to avoid a tyranny by the majority. We may have worked ourselves into a tyranny by the minority at this point though. :( Even the more egalitarian House somewhat overrepresents the more sparsely populated states, although it probably doesn't make nearly as much of a difference in practice. States get a number of representatives based on population, but every state gets at least one representative, so you have the case of (for example) Wyoming having one representative for its 600,000 people, but Texas ends up having one representative per ~800,000 people. Of course, Wyoming has one rep total and Texas has 36 of them, so I don't think Wyoming will be outvoting Texas anytime soon, but still.