This is a standard kind of political science exercise. I'm dubious alot of "real" work went into it. There is software these days that would make it fairly simple. I participated in something similar about 20 years ago.
What is a bit silly, is sticking with 50 states. If you really were considering ANYTHING like this, it would also be a time to reduce the number of states. We were discussing 10 because that's how many federal districts there are. Later, I realized that 13 might be a better number (historical to begin with, as well as preventing "ties" in many situations).
But the real purpose is as someone suggested, to show how flubbed up our current system is because the population/representation ratio is all screwed up. There is a VASTLY outsized influence of various areas/states because of the senate perscription for 2 per state, plus that each state gets at least one congress critter, regardless of population. There are sections of Manhattan that have more people than Hawaii. I think I calculated one time that you could have 40 votes in the senate by controlling states compromising 13% of the population.
(By the by, there is a similar exercise where one tries to divide the country into states that have far more cultural and economic homogenaity. You end up with some "city states" and some states that have almost no one in them)