How does a smaller House work to the advantage of smaller states? Montana has most number of people per congresscritter.
That's because Montana is at the sour spot for apportionment under our current system, just under √2 of an ideal House seat. If it had had just a few more people then it would would had two Representatives and replaced Rhode Island for the distinction of having the least number of people per congresscritter.
Right now we have no States that are unfairly overrepresented because of the guaranteed House seat. Back in 1900, Nevada had a population of only 42,335 at a time when an ideal House seat had 194,182 people. That is the worst historical mismatch.
No state unfairly overrepresented? Ever hear of Wyoming? And, as you point out, Rhode Island. Individually, small states get "unfair" representation, both over and under because frequently neither 1 nor 2 is perfectly fair (and so you have overs and unders, MT and RI). I don't see how small states, as a group, benefit, which was the premise I was refuting. The Montanas and Rhode Islands cancel each other out.
