Right--the way the electoral college assigns votes is exactly as you guys have worked out, and because of those plus 2 it gives a huge advantage to the smaller states' voters relative to the bigger ones.
But the distribution of the 435 members of the house also isn't exact. I believe (I'm not going to look it up, but there is a correct answer), the House's districts are currently divided into 750,000 member districts, except that they are all within a single state. As a result, not all districts are the same size, and I think--though I'm not sure--that this, again results in a moderate bump for the less populous states. In short, whereas in Texas, Flordida, New York, and California, the districts are closer to a uniform 750K, my recollection is that the more rural states have districts that are often a little smaller than that, which, again gives their individual voter a little more say in the presidential election. Not a lot, a little.
And--again--it's all academic. While, as Cincy notes, some states may vote to assign their electors to the winner of the popular vote, only the more populous states are likely to do that, essentially protecting the current system. And because there are more less populous than more populous states, the electoral college isn't going anywhere.
