I was reading some questions on this site, and I stumbled up this comment. I'll transcribe the relevant parts of it here in case it ever goes away:
You could throw in something about how Hillary actually won the national popular vote and how the electoral college system is seriously broken.
And, technically, the United States is a republic, and the electoral college isn't representative (low population states are favored). -- @barrycarter
Is this claim really true? Thinking through it logically, it would make sense that in a hypothetical situation where a state has only a single resident, clearly that persons vote is a lot more important that someone who lives in California. But since states with smaller population have less electoral votes, that should counter this affect.
But I don't know how large this compensation is. Is it enough to fully counter the higher influence of lower population states? And if it's not, is the higher influence of low population areas relevant to the state or to regions within the state (such as counties)?
And another thought occurs to me. Is the electoral college intended to give smaller states more influence? It wouldn't seem unusual to me if it was designed so that each state has a certain amount of influence regardless of population so that extremely large states can't exert their will over all of the other states.