Why should equal areas on the map have equal amounts of political influence? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
I am picturing an interview conducted by the 'news team' at The Onion, interviewing a sage brush somewhere in Wyoming, because it's more important that actual people in, say, California.
...and adjustments have been happening over many decades. That's why, say, California has many more electoral votes (55) than Montana (3). Yet it's still not completely proportional as California has about 40M people while Montana has just over 1M.
Yes, any state always gets a minimum of three since the number of senators is two and representatives is one (the minimum).