To take a practical example, the European parliament. Seats are allocated to each state according to population using degressive proportionality, which mean that Luxembourgish voters have roughly 10x more influence per voter than citizens of the six large countries. The alternative would be that Luxembourgish have practically no vote, since their population would be too small to even get a single seat, meaning their vote would have 0 influence. Which one is more fair?
You've also touched on one of the longest-running debates in American politics: should we treat states as independent and semi-autonomous or allow the federal government to dictate policy direction for the nation. You can probably tell what side I'm on. People still claim that the American civil war was about the South defending "states' rights" when I, and many others, feel that it was about defending the rights of many people actually in those states.
That might be a little off topic. Anyway it's an interesting debate, but it's just hard to see how a candidate for national office can win more votes across the country and come out the loser.
Wyoming (pop. 584,153) has two Senators. California (pop. 38.8 million) has two Senators. CA is 66 times the population. Alaska (pop. 736,732), two Senators.
Similar, Sweden have a similar system where a vote from the small island of Gotland has 50% more impact compared to any other vote. The reason for that is that otherwise the island would only have 2 politicians in the parliament and the Swedish government wanted to have one more party representing the island than just the two major parties (which, based on those rules, means that the top 3 parties in Gotland is more or less guarantied one seat each).