I'd say it promotes the two party system and the establishment due to how the country is structured, unless we get proportional representation (in terms of delegate distribution) in every state. The way I'm understanding this proposal, you could never pay attention to the plight of the midwest and win by focusing on the select issues that occur within a certain landmass, because the people who live in that specific area will probably have many of the same federal government concerns. So you could get 4392 votes per given area on the issue of corporate taxbreaks to help create white collar jobs that urban areas have, while never having to go to more rural areas to hear them out on increase of the manufacturing jobs lost due to taxbreaks that made overseas manufacturing easier-- because you might only get 100 votes per given area.

If the U.S. had more powerful urban areas distributed around the country, it would probably be worth more consideration.

According to this spreadsheet: http://www.electproject.org/2016g , the top 10 states in number of eligible voters could decide the election with 120 mil out of 230 mil votes: California, Texas, Florida, NY, PA, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Georgia. California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, and Massachusetts have nearly 25% of the voting eligible population alone at ~55 mil.