[CalChris]

> We already have the senate. The house also favors less populous states, even if not by design.

The Electoral College also favors less populous states.

  Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
  thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the
  whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the
  State may be entitled in the Congress

So Wyoming gets 3 electors for a population of 584,153 or 194717 per elector. California gets 55 for a population of 38.8M or 705454 per elector.

[notahacker]

For Presidential elections the electioneering arithmetic is significantly more complex than voters per elector though, and doesn't evenly favour states of any particular size.

Ultimately what matters is percentage swing to the other major party for the state to change electoral vote, scaled by the size of the state and realistic probability of the swing actually happening.

Wyoming might have fewer voters per elector than Florida, but as solidly Republican as states get there's not much point in paying it any attention beyond the primaries, whereas the priorities of a few thousand Cuban exiles in Florida can shape foreign policy because they frequently play a major role in determining the eventual president. And a smallish electoral bribe in the form of investment allocated to populous areas of large states Michigan and Wisconsin would, for better and for worse, probably have swung it for Clinton.

California is at the rougher end of both scales, both under-represented per head and unlikely to change hands. But you'd also probably be less likely to be ignored in a pure popular vote election if you lived in Wyoming, especially if you were amongst the minority of Wyoming residents willing to vote for either party depending on the individual candidates' programmes.