Electors are given based on House seats (plus 2 for Senate seats), which are currently distributed based on population. The national average population per House seat is ~700,000. So highly populated states do have more vote weight, because they have more electors.

The problem is the "winner takes all" system, not the elector system. The electors are already evenly allocated by population. If a state with 20 electors were to split 51/49 by popular vote, then we could allow a split of 11/9 electors instead of giving all 20 for the slight majority. Because the amount of electors is generally so low it would mean it's not a direct popular vote either, especially with odd numbers (a state with 3 electors split 68/32 would still award 3 for the winner) which means that low population states still have vote weight, candidates wouldn't just campaign in high population states as feared with a strict popular vote

voter turnout would increase as well because if your state always goes majority one party, you could still swing individual electors by small margins (pushing the 68/32 state to 66/34 would net an extra vote, and it only requires a 2% swing as opposed to a 16% swing)