This meme is misleading.
"I used to think that power allocated disproportionately to the small states because of the Electoral College. Unfortunately that's a mathematically naive notion. Because electors are controlled according to state level slates, you have to use a game theory accounting system of how many ways you can make or break winning coalitions called the "banzhaf power index".
California in the presidential election votes as a block and carries the most delegates which means that it's necessary for more winning coalitions than any other state. That gives voters in California the most power even normalizing against population. There are so many more winning coalitions that include California that voters in California have three times the likelihood of contributing to potential win as do voters in a low population state like North Dakota, even though the two extra Senators give North Dakota a little bit of extra electoral power. Basically we would need to greatly increase the Electoral count of the low population states for them to have power proportionate to their population."
According to this calculation of "dan04", the voters of low population states have ~2.5 times less influence on the election than a voter in California:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/26746/38801
"I used to think that power allocated disproportionately to the small states because of the Electoral College. Unfortunately that's a mathematically naive notion. Because electors are controlled according to state level slates, you have to use a game theory accounting system of how many ways you can make or break winning coalitions called the "banzhaf power index".
California in the presidential election votes as a block and carries the most delegates which means that it's necessary for more winning coalitions than any other state. That gives voters in California the most power even normalizing against population. There are so many more winning coalitions that include California that voters in California have three times the likelihood of contributing to potential win as do voters in a low population state like North Dakota, even though the two extra Senators give North Dakota a little bit of extra electoral power. Basically we would need to greatly increase the Electoral count of the low population states for them to have power proportionate to their population."
According to this calculation of "dan04", the voters of low population states have ~2.5 times less influence on the election than a voter in California:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/26746/38801