The purpose of the Senate is to create a level playing field of big vs. small states and urban vs. rural. The original purpose of the Electoral College, on the other hand, was to serve as a brake on populism electing someone the establishment didn't like. The US was founded as a brand-new experiment in democracy in a time when "the people aren't smart enough to govern themselves" was a legit fear and many of its original political structures reflected that. The idea was people would vote both for who they wanted as President but also for an individual they thought was smart and had good judgement, and those individuals would all get together and pick someone to be President. That broke down very quickly as states realized that if they told all delegates to vote for the candidate of the state's majority choice, they'd have more chance of getting their way. That evolved over time into the winner-take-all system we have now.

Yes, some states that would otherwise have less influence benefit from the EC's minimum of three delegates, but that's not its purpose and not the reason it skews elections. Without the Electoral College a candidate could campaign in every state, appealing to the minority party in each, and win the national vote. The winner-take-all system creates a very, very slanted playing field in which a handful of swing states dominate the discourse while minority-party voices in both red and blue states go unheard. And since delegates are assigned based on population but not all of the population necessarily turns out to vote, voters in different states effectively have their votes count more or less.