It wasn't about how much the states electoral votes matter, but how much a single persons vote matters in the entire election.

How electoral votes matter is the whole point. If it was done by pure population they would have equal voting power. They do not have equal voting power because the electoral votes matter.

1 person in Wyoming makes more difference in how Wyoming election turns out. Less population, more influence.

There are 538 electoral votes divided over 50 states

Wyoming has 3

California has 54

Wyoming has 584k people

California has 39m people

In Wyoming each voters has 5.137E-6 electoral votes to cast

In California each voters has 8.98305085E−7 electoral votes to cast

Now winner takes all electoral votes aside. Someone in Wyoming is contributing more electoral votes to their candidate than someone in California.

This is what's always argued when talking about voting power based on population

If the candidate needs 270 to win, if I am able to give more to a candidate with my vote, my vote is more powerful in a way.

There has been two elections decided by 3 electoral votes. 1876 Hayes and 1796 Adams. Total electoral votes at the time were 261 and 138, respectively. It would be equivalent to winning by 6 and 12 votes today with the 538 electoral votes. So while it was 3, those 3 votes meant a lot more back then when it was 3/261 or 3/138.

If 50.000 people in California changes their vote it hardly matters. If 50.000 people in wyoming do that, it heavily influences the outcome of who wyoming votes for.

Like I said earlier, yes, Wyoming voters have more influence on who wins their electoral votes and they have more electoral votes per person

California with 53 electoral votes is a 106 point swing. Taking 53 electoral votes from the winning candidate and giving it to the runner up would change the majority of all the elections.

Think of it this way:

2 states just California and Wyoming. California has 53 votes, Wyoming 3.

56 votes total. Need 29 votes to win.

Biggest issue the candidates are running on is spending money on beaches.

Candidate A: For spending

Candidate B: Against spending

California wants A, Wyoming wants B.

If what you're saying is true, then Wyoming should have the most power in this election because each of their votes count more than a person in California.

584k deciding 3 electoral votes vs 39m deciding 53 electoral votes

Yet every single person in Wyoming could vote candidate B, and it's still going to be up to California to decide

So would you want to be a voter in Wyoming or California?

California because your vote doesn't matter in Wyoming. No matter who you vote for in Wyoming, California is going to decide. You want to be able to cast your vote in California to hopefully swing the state

If you gave those 584k Wyoming voters the chance to not cast their vote in Wyoming but instead cast their vote in California against the 39m, they would be wise to do it. Doesn't matter where 3/56 electoral votes go, it matters much more where the 53/56 electoral votes go.

So yes, while each voter in California has less effect on the California electoral votes. California has more effect on the total electoral votes.

Being able to participate in a more important election is worth more than having more influence in an election that is next to meaningless.