If you care so much about the per capita power of your vote, why do you want to dilute it from 1 in 40 million to 1 in 350 million?
That's not how you compare per capita voting power. It's well known that the most populous states have less voting power per capita, because you need to compare number of voters to number of electoral votes.
Yes I have about a 1 in ~30 million influence on my state's electoral vote in the current system (well closer to 1 in ~10 million based on voter eligibility and turnout), but 10 million votes from my state are worth less than 10 million votes from the smallest states in the union, because the smaller states get more electoral votes for the same number of voters.
I'm also not saying that swing states are the smallest states, just that the swing states you listed collectively represent just 25% of the population, a hair less than the combined totals of CA, TX, and NY, and yet the "swing" quarter of the country in reality matters more to the election than the biggest states (excepting Florida) and the smallest states.
I'm not at all saying this election was illegitimate. And I understand the historical reasons for why we have the system that we do, and I understand arguments for keeping it the current way. But there are also valid arguments to change it. I don't think there's a 100% right or wrong answer incidentally, it just comes down to opinion about how you think the country should be run. Personally I have two main reasons: (1) I think the system made more sense when the Constitution was ratified than it does today, with the federal government much more powerful today the reason for splitting things along state lines makes less sense, and (2) I live in a large state and am unhappy that my vote proportionally counts for less.