The bigger issue is the unbalanced distribution of EC votes to less populated states.

Let's say we changed the distribution of ECV's from a all or nothing system in each state to one which proportionally hand's out ECV's based on the percentage of votes each candidate won in that state.

So, just as an example Alabama has 9 electoral votes. That means you'd need 11.11 percent of the popular vote for one electoral. Trump had 62.89 of the popular vote there. He would get 5 ECV's MOD 7.34% (that is 55.55% gets him 5 ECV's with an additional 7.3 remaining. Clinton had 34.55 so she'd get 3 ECV's with 1.22% remaining. Johnson received only 2.11% and thus would not get any ECV's in this state. There is still one ECV remaining (since we rounded down the distribution) which Trump would win (7.34>1.22,2.11).

Repeat across the country and you end up with this. (Warning: Minor errors possible and horrendously ugly formal's unavoidable. I'm not a statistician, I just did what I could to make the model work)

Trump: 280, Clinton: 247, Gary Johnson (with McMillians Utah votes): 11.

The distribution does negate some of the skewing caused by the All or Nothing system but doesn't reflect the popular vote. The reason is the Electoral College simply is not evenly distributed based on each states voting population. 188,000 votes gets you an ECV in Wyoming. In California you need 677,000 votes, nearly three and a half times as many, for one ECV.