This is not a discussion about how likely it is to happen, but that the electoral college is unbalanced because NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME.

If you had been reading my comments, you'd know I know the electoral college is unbalanced.

It being unbalanced is the whole reason it exists

To make sure the high populated states don't always get what they want and give smaller populated states more voice

This is not a discussion about how likely it is to happen, but that the electoral college is unbalanced because NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME.

This is a discussion about how likely one voter is to affect the election

You are trying to make it not about that

The question is, "Does someone voting in Wyoming have more "voting power" than someone in California?"

It's like if I wanted Candidate A to win. Would it be better if I lived in Wyoming or California?

I've said before that someone in Wyoming has more EV per capita. "NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME."

My point is one voter swinging Wyoming and then Wyoming swinging the EC, is never going to happen before one voter swings California and California's EVs just mattering like they always do.

Lower population does not automatically mean more "voting power"

That Pennsylvania, 19 EC 13m Pop., has more "voting power" than both California and Wyoming

Pennsylvania has 1/3 population of California. But 1/3 EC would be 17.5.

A single voter in Pennsylvania has higher chances of being the deciding vote than in California, and Pennsylvania gets more EV per capita.

19 EC is enough to realistically change the election. 3 EC is not.

That's why Pennsylvania is a "swing state" and Wyoming is not.