There's a phrase missing.....
As the EC comes under scrutiny for delivering the Presidency to Trump despite his large margin of loss (now approaching 2,500,000) in the actual vote, the wingnuts have been trotting out defenses of it, of which this example is fairly typical. It usually boils down to saying that without the EC, the vast rural interior of the country could never get its choice for President and the coasts/cities/liberals would dominate just because they have a larger population.
This is an argument for minority rule, and we should call it that. It's not different in essence from defending apartheid on the grounds that it protected South Africa from being dominated by blacks "just because" there were more of them. 30% of the US population is black or Latino; if our system were somehow rigged to give their votes more weight than those of the other 70%, such a system could be defended on the grounds that it protected blacks and Latinos from being dominated by the more numerous whites. Any plan to allow a minority to outvote a majority could be defended on the same grounds, and they're all fundamentally alike.
Protection for minority rights is necessary, and the US actually has better such protections than most democracies. The Bill of Rights and the autonomy of states and local governments have in fact protected much of what the rural culture values, such as gun ownership and freedom of religion (though not freedom to discriminate on grounds of religious taboo, which is a different thing). But in a real democracy, the majority wins elections even if it cannot thereby completely override the rights of the minority.
The defense of the EC is really a defense of the idea that the votes of people in cities (and of blacks and Latinos, who mostly vote Democratic whether urban or not) should count for less than those of people in the numerous thinly-populated states of the interior. It's an argument for special political privileges for a minority, and we should say so at every opportunity.