I provided clear reasons and a citation to a published paper on the topic. I’m not sure how you count that as “making no attempt to refute it.”

To provide a simple example of (2), let us imagine that the Electoral College has 100 votes, and California has 51, awarded via winner-take-all.

In this scenario, California has 100% of the power; whichever candidate wins California’s 51 votes has an automatic majority. Thus, California would have twice as much power as votes.

To provide a second simple example of (2), let us imagine that the Electoral College involves only 11 states, the rest having sunk beneath the ocean or seceded. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York have 26 electoral votes each, with the other 8 states having 3 electoral votes each.

In order to win, any candidate must win at least two of the three large states. Conversely, two of the three large states are sufficient to win — it does not matter how the other eight states vote at all, even if they have, together, nearly a quarter of the total electoral vote.

In between the extreme scenarios of no power or of dictatorial power, we have a gentle but uneven distortion: Larger blocs are more powerful. There are many ways to measure this.

It is a plain and simple fact that the actual power distribution in a weighted voting system is complicated from both a pragmatic and a mathematical perspective.