Right now the house has been capped. Thus the federal side of the government has more power than the national side.
What are you talking about?
The federalization of power over the last 250 years was in large part due to SCOTUS jurisprudence applying the bill of rights to the states, along with a fairly liberal reading of what counts as "interstate commerce". Neither the electoral college nor the population of the house are directly related to the separation of power between the federal government and the 50 states.
You are right in noting that the US House is artificially capped at 435 members, although you don't seem to realize that electoral college votes are exactly equal to congressional (senate + house) representation (Plus "the amount given to the smallest state" for DC, getting to 538). This cap leads to a less responsive legislature with uneven allocation of power, mostly by giving small states an unfair double-bump even though that's what the senate is for, but that cap doesn't really do a thing when it comes to centralization of power.
(And the whole "federation of separate democracies" was a zombie idea in the original constitution with a directly elected house, was mostly killed when the senate also became popularly elected, and only lingers on as a justification to give Wyoming and other small states way more power in choosing the president than their population deserves. Which is even dumber when we realize that the population of Republicans in NY and CA or Democrats in TX and FL is way larger than most small states, and yet they essentially don't get a say anymore.)