Here’s another way to think of it. How many congressional votes does Los Angeles get before it’s people are adequately represented? Right now I believe it’s 18.
Even at that level their vote per capita is technically 3:1 less powerful than a person in WY. But whose interests are being served better in Congress?
Is the population of LA really disenfranchised in Congress due to WY getting a representative, or because LA didn’t get 30?
There’s a power effect which is very much non-linear due to the individual votes in Congress being decided on a win/loss by majority or super-majority and this effect already greatly benefits these so-called “disenfranchised” voters.
There are legitimate issues with agricultural funding, infrastructure and whatnot that fall along those lines but mostly when people say they don't want "small state X run by California" or "New York" what they mean is they don't want Federal laws passed which force those small states to adopt more progressive or leftist policies than their local culture would be comfortable with.