I have a few issues with this argument:
- The current states with their boundaries are artificial man-made creations. California could've entered the union as 2 states or the Dakotas as one. Given the political compromises made for many states to enter the union, I'd say allocating votes by state is allocating votes according to 19th century political compromises made with slave states.
- While the electoral college is said to give smaller states a voice, presidential candidates completely ignored smaller states. Wyoming may have the biggest electoral college weight, but it received zero ad spending from either candidate. Even a battleground state like NH was mostly ignored after the primaries. Attention is solely focused on the large battleground states.
- Even if votes are allocated by state according to the electoral college formula, there is no need to have the electoral college as an intermediary. Even today, the presidential election results are not final, and it is possible, even if unlikely, that electors could change their vote. In the 2000 election, it would have taken only 2 electors to change the results. That this is both legal and possible should worry voters.