Actually in fact the entire election scheme was developed in a compromise with the explicit idea being to give more rural, less populous states more power than

Actually in fact the entire election scheme was developed in a compromise with the explicit idea being to give more rural, less populous states more power than their actual population would warrant, an agreed-upon gerrymandering by design. The power between urban/populous and rural/slave-owning states was carefully constructed, they compromised at counting slave votes 3/5ths of a citizen vote, which could be cast by the slave owner for example. The US was created as a confederation of distinct states, all of them as equal partners, not a collection of people, and concessions had to be made to get all of them to sign on and present a united front against the British if there was any hope at a successful rebellion. That was all well and reasonable when state power was large and federal power was relatively small, but now that the opposite is true and states barely matter with the federal government superseding and deciding nearly everything the premises for that compromise no longer hold. But this will likely never change; the power given to the smaller states is enough that they can prevent any modification to the rules, and the rules radically favor keeping them in power, so there is no incentive for them to ever give it up besides some sense of doing the right thing even if it isn't politically advantageous which is a sentiment that sadly doesn't really exist anymore in American politics.