This inequity between large and small states, looking at the electoral votes over time, seem to be of increasing consequence. If a severe republican is every elected, it wil be in no small part because the small states have an extra two votes. Since 1984, the last time that Republican elected a non-incumbent president in a landslide, it has been the Democrats who have been getting the electoral votes. Even in reelection Bush only had a 35 electoral vote advantage, a count that would have allowed him to win by only 5 electoral votes if the senate votes were not counted.
If a severe conservative is elected, it will be because of the extra votes of small states.
The people have elected a person who harasses women for fun and lies about everything. It is the electoral college that got him elected. While the largest inequity in the electoral college is that senate seat count as electoral votes, in this election that was not the only problem. The senate only allocated Trump about 20 extra electoral votes.
The small states do have an overabundance of representation even without the senate. While the upper quartile of states has a representative for every 700-800,000 population smaller states are closer to 600,000. In this case I think Trump was able to use this advantage , perhaps accidentally, and turn it into a victory. I think this was also the source of Nate Silver’s uncertainty, that Clinton did not have support in the right states.
Still I think that adjusting the electoral college by removing senate seats is the best option. The electoral college, whose purpose is to keep the peasants from having a say in electing presidents, is not going away under republican leadership. It is the primary means of decreasing white majority population to remain in power. It is the only hope of the alt-right to stave off the inevitable time when they are no longer able to pretend they are still the majority.