Thats the issue right there. Its only in highly populated states where the is a severe need for theese social programs. Like I said in the previous post, california has 1/9 the US population but has 1/3 the poor of the US. Its disproportionate. Thats the point of the electoral college. So all the resources are not drained from smaller states to feed the bigger states for the issues they created.
Math errors aside (which others have discussed with you already), that's not actually a function of or the reason for the EC. Looking at what we have from the actual record at the Constitutional Convention that pertains to discussion over the nature of the presidency, there doesn't appear to be anything suggesting that the Framers by and large felt that an EC was necessary to protect small states from big states. Rather, the EC came about through pure politics. The Framers disagreed on everything when it came to structuring the new government that would be formed by the Constitution, and that included how the executive was to be chosen.
Some of them wanted the president to be chosen by the Congress, similar to how presidents are selected in most parliamentary republics. Others objected to that on the basis of separation of powers, as it would make the presidency dependent on the legislature.
Some of them wanted the president to be elected directly by the people. Others objected to that largely because of... certain sectional interests. As James Madison put it:
"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."
In other words, delegates from slave states in the South felt that their slaves not counting towards the selection of the president would disadvantage them (the same attitude that led to objections over congressional apportionment, which led to the Three-fifths Compromise). This made a plan for the direct popular election of the president a non-starter at the Convention.
So, neither election by the legislature nor direct election by (free, male, land-owning) citizens at large were politically viable. The eventual compromise was the Electoral College. It's existence has little to nothing to do with some noble desire to protect small states from large states (though the Senate was intended to put all states on even footing by giving them equal representation in at least one house of our national legislature, whose structure as outlined in the Constitution was itself a product of compromise), and everything to do with with a bunch of disagreeable men finding a solution that ruffled the fewest feathers.
Everything written since then in support of the EC are just a bunch of post-hoc rationalizations for maintaining the status quo... a status quo that in the present clearly benefits one political party more than it does another. "Federalism" is a poor excuse for retaining it, as is quaint notions like "big states vs. small states." In reality, states are divided more along partisan lines than by population size in modern America. Vermont and Hawaii have more in common politically with California and New York than they do with Wyoming or Nebraska. Meanwhile, Idaho and Kansas have more in common politically with Texas and Georgia than they do with Delaware and Rhode Island.
There have long been a desire to replace the EC with a national popular vote. The closest we came to that was the Bayh—Celler Amendment from the early 70s, which was proposed in response to the contentious outcome of the 1968 election. It had the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans across all political identities (Gallup has done multiple polls on the EC at least since 1966, which is the source for my numbers here in this paragraph) and it passed the House by a massive margin, but it was filibustered to death in the Senate, with the filibuster being led mostly by segregationist senators like my state's own Strom Thurmond. By 1980, most Americans still supported a national popular vote, the outcome of the 1968 election likely still fresh in most people's minds. Since then, there haven't been any amendments to abolish the EC to make it to a vote in either chamber of the Congress, and it has become an increasingly partisan issue, but one where an overwhelming majority of Democrats have been consistently in favor of a popular vote (as they were in 1980 and before), whereas Republicans waffled back and forth in their support of the EC.
Another poll wouldn't be done until after the 2000 election, and suddenly we see a majority of Republicans support the EC (56%, vs 41% supporting a national popular vote). Then Barack Obama becomes president eight years later, and most Republicans went back to wanting to see a national popular vote, with support peaking at 61% in Jan. 2013. In fact, some Republican politicians in several states pushed for those states to use the Nebraska—Maine rule of allocating electoral votes (statewide vote winner gets two votes; the rest are awarded by congressional districts), apparently because they felt the EC as is wasn't fair to them. Perhaps not coincidentally, those states were mainly states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that were perceived as being reliably Democratic in voting for president. We never saw Republicans propose anything similar for red states like Texas or Tennessee. Then after the 2016 election Republicans suddenly reversed course yet again, with Republican support for a national popular vote declining from the aforementioned 61% to only 19%. Trump himself went from calling the EC "a disaster for democracy" to singing its praises.
It seems to me that most Republicans don't care about the EC because they think it's a genuinely good and fair institution, but rather because they feel it gives them an advantage since it got Trump the win despite him losing the national popular vote. They like the rules when the rules work for them. Otherwise, they will seek to alter or abolish the rules or find some loophole to exploit.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning citizens have always supported a national popular vote regardless of whether or not the EC was perceived as working for them (support for abolishing the EC never dipped below 66% for Dems, and was usually in the 70-80% range for at least the past 20 years), showing that most of them have simply felt the EC was a bad institution period, even if it got Obama huge electoral landslides.
This is yet another example of the asymmetry in partisan politics, and why those who want to retain the EC and oppose a national popular vote do so for largely cynical reasons. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with "big states vs. small states" or other more abstract philosophical notions.