That was the heading for this NY Times chart:
This map shows each state re-sized in proportion to the relative influence of the individual voters who live there. The numbers indicate the total delegates to the Electoral College from each state, and how many eligible voters a single delegate from each state represents.
The accompanying article describes the usual small-state Electoral College bias, but goes on from there:
But there is a second, less obvious distortion to the “one person, one vote” principle. Seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned according to the number of residents in a given state, not the number of eligible voters. And many residents — children, noncitizens and, in many states, prisoners and felons — do not have the right to vote.
In House races, 10 eligible voters in California, a state with many residents who cannot vote, represent 16 people in the voting booth. In New York and New Jersey, 10 enfranchised residents stand for themselves and five others. (And given that only 60 percent of eligible voters turn out at the polls, the actual figures are even starker.) Of all the states, Vermont comes the closest to the one person, one vote standard. Ten Vermont residents represent 12 people.
The state-to-state difference is dramatic. In fact, though, for many of us, the actual situation is even worse. Voters in California (like me) or in Wyoming, despite the big difference in voting weight as shown in the above map, have approximately zero chance of influencing the outcome of a presidential election, simply because our electors are allocated on a winner-take-all basis, and our states very reliably go for one party or the other.
(A possible fix for this is the National Popular Vote project, but the main subject of this post is the nifty graphic.)