In theory, it does this, but in reality, it really doesn't. If small states really had so much influence, then we'd see candidates spending time in them, right?
No, because the outsized influence of small states like Rhode Island and Wyoming has nothing to do with who actually wins those states. It's a matter of mathematics: Rhode Island accounts for roughly 0.3% of the total US population but controls 0.7% of the votes in the electoral college; likewise, Wyoming accounts for approximately 0.2% of the national population yet controls 0.6% of electors. The winner-take-all system only makes things worse, since a simple majority of a state's voters choose 100% of their state's electors. The problem only gets bigger if turnout is lower in small states than in the rest of the country. Basically, the electoral college is guaranteed to distort the outcome no matter who wins each individual state, because it rewards states with small populations and low turnout at the expense of states with large populations and high turnout. It's a horrible system that needs to be done away with (though, of course, it won't be, because this is
Congress we're talking about).
