How do the results of a single state swing the total "so wildly out of proportion with the state's population"?
The Electoral College is exactly based on a state's congressional representation. California has more people, thus more electoral votes. Each electoral vote represents roughly 700,000 people within a state.
While state lines are arbitrary, states are not: they represent a sovereign entity within the United States much like Belgium is a sovereign state within the EU despite Belgium having arbitrary borders. To think otherwise is to fail to understand what the United States is: a federal system with divisions of power allocated by the Constitution. The interests of the people of Louisiana are vastly different than those of New York -- the system represents that reality.
The more interesting question is if we would have this discussion if Hillary had won? Popular vote does not determine the presidency -- that has been true since the beginning; it isn't like anyone was robbed.
If Trump had lost and Breitbart had conducted some statistical analysis to prove that the vote was rigged, it wouldn't even make it on Hacker News. Every election one side or another tries to justify their losses but rarely does such a justification ascend to high art as it is apparently doing here. Ultimately the bottom line is that the media state-by-state predictions were wrong and now there is hand-wringing to rationalize it. National polls are meaningless yet we continue to subscribe to their irrelevance.