The Electoral College is designed to give states with small populations more influence so that they are not too overshadowed by the larger states. Besides, Democrats actually take in quite a few of the small states as well. Including DC there are 13 states with 4 or fewer electoral votes and together they total 44 electoral votes (approximately 8.2% of all electoral votes). Republicans "control" 19 of those votes and Democrats have the other 25. So really if you want to point fingers it is the Democrats getting an unfair advantage here especially since DC isn't even a state.
However I sort of agree with your proposal in that I favor an increase in the size of the House which would automatically increase the size of the Electoral College.
4 v. 5 electoral votes (2 v. 3 Congresscritters, not counting Senators) = bad cutoff. 435 / 50 = 8.7 (counting DC's Delegate, 436 / 51 = approx. 8.55) and 538 / 51 = approx. 10.55. The two "Senatorial" EVs each state (and DC) gets increases a 3 CD state's share of the electoral college by 35.1% and a 4 CD state's share by 21.6%. That's fairly significant I'd day.
Republicans generally win more states than the Democrats in Presidential elections, so the two "Senatorial" EVs each state gets in addition to its roughly proportional number of "Represenative" EVs helps them. However, winning a large state by a small percentage of the vote (even a small number of votes) counts more than winning a small state by a landslide, and that might have been why Kerry came closer percentage-wise on a uniform popular vote swing to winning the electoral vote than winning the popular vote.
