Stating the obvious? Yes. But a more detail analysis is worth a look. Below, I revisit the 2000 presidential election. All data presented was current as of then.

In a true democracy, "one person (equals) one vote" applies. However, the misinformed and Republicans, often one-and-the-same, don't realize that ours is a republic, in which the "one person (equals) one vote" rule does not apply. In the U.S., the presidential election is determined through the electoral college. A state's electoral votes are loosely tied to its population.

State Population EV Candidate
WY 495,304 3 Bush
D.C. 572,059 3 Gore
VT 609,890 3 Gore
AK 628,933 3 Bush

FL 16,028,890 27 Bush
NY 19,004,973 31 Gore
TX 20,903,994 34 Bush
CA 33,930,798 55 Gore

Rhetorical question: Why do Republicans repeat their mantra "one person (equals) one vote" but remain resistant to electoral college reform that would reflect this refrain? Simple. 1 EV from CA carries the weight of about one-eighteen an electoral vote from WY. In other words, an EV cast from WY is 18.3 times more valuable than 1 EV cast from CA.

Here, let's reform the electoral college such that 1 EV' in WY = 1 EV' in VT = 1 EV' in TX = 1 EV' in CA, where EV' denotes the reformed EV value.

State EV' Candidate
WY 1.00 Bush
VT 1.23 Gore
TX 42.20 Bush
CA 68.50 Gore

Given the distribution of states won by each candidate (Bush 30 includes Florida, Gore 21 includes D.C.), the result produces a different electoral college outcome.

Candidate States Won EV' Recieved
Gore 21 284.73
Bush 30 284.61

Not only did Gore win the popular vote (not relevant), where "one person (equals) one vote" by more than 537,000, but he also edges Bush in a modified electoral college, where 1 EV' = 1 EV'.