It doesn't go all to one side, but in most years, it favors red states a bit. For example, in 2012, red states had 587K people per vote, while blue states had 619K. When certain high-population states switched to red in 2016 (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan), that gap narrowed to be statistically insignificant, 604K to 607K. That's pretty much the pattern. If the Republican wins, the numbers are very close, and if the Democrat wins, there is a noticeable gap that favors the red states. The last time the gap favored the blue states was 1992, when Clinton won low-pop states like Montana and West Virginia, but lost Florida.
All that said, I obviously wasn't promoting the idea that there is some kind of huge partisan advantage built in. I do think the numbers prove the GOP has a very minor advantage in the Electoral College, but "minor" is the operative word there. That advantage can clearly be overcome, as evidenced by eight years of President Obama.
But even when you ignore partisan considerations, it's worth recognizing that the disparity does exist, if for no other reason than to ask ourselves, is there really a good reason that a Vermonter has three-and-a-half times the voting power of a Texan when it comes to electing our primary national leader?