Sorta, but that’s not the whole story. We have two legislative bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the senate, every state gets two senators. In the house, every state gets at least two representatives, plus some amount based on population - california has 52, for instance.

The original idea was to “make sure rural voices were heard”. In practice, it very much has been what you stated - if you’re educated but not rich enough to benefit from republican policies, you flee red states en masse, leaving mostly rich assholes and uneducated chucklefucks who are hurt most by the very people they elect. They then have a massively disproportionate effect on policy versus any joe schmoe in california.

I wasn't even thinking about that, a 50% reduction in women in child bearing age would absolutely ruin the future population growth of the state, and on an even more basic level, would mean that a lot of men would never find a partner in the state, so they would need to move to other states to find someone, which means even more population loss.

At some point the situation would be so critical that there would be no choice but to change the laws back, and even after that it would take a LONG time for people to get the confidence to move back.

The amount of electoral votes per state is adjusted based on its population, but they all get a minimum of 3. So, if enough people left, it would have some effect on the state's voting power, but once you get to a certain threshold, the weight of each person's vote actually starts to go up.