What you suggest would merely disenfranchise fewer people. Why disenfranchise any? Do you believe that people with more land associated with them should have a more powerful vote? One of the first things to be eliminated in our history of governance was a land ownership requirement for voting. This is just another way of making land relevant  instead of personhood. If you believe that all people are equal under the Constitution and the law then the easiest solution is to have the President elected by popular vote, as is every other elected official in this country. How can a person who is supposed to serve all Americans equally do so if some Americans have more say in his election than others? The answer is he doesn't. Swing states get more money for infrastructure and disaster relief and their concerns are in the forefront in elections. People in less populous states already have greater per capita representation due to the Senate and the unbalanced distribution of electoral votes.