I agree with Free Bird. When you start messing with things like the EC that was so carefully thought out, you do not know the unintended consequences. Best to leave it alone. Even if this makes sense, you know the libs will find some way of making it mean THEY win. Somehow. All their thinking is spent on malevolent Machiavellian plots.
The EC was carefully thought out as a means of indirectly electing a President. The original ideas was that electors were elected by the people or the legislatures of the several states, the Electoral College met, and elected the President (or didn’t and the House of Representatives got to).
The state-by-state winner-take-all wasn’t carefully thought out, but the result of popular pressure to have electors picked by the people rather than the legislature, the rise of parties fielding slates of electors commited to their party’s candidate, and strategizing by the party in control of the state legislatures (based on the assumption that the voters who elected them will favor their party at the Presidential level) to maximize their supporter’s influence.
Nebraska and Maine, as I already noted, haven’t accepted this last strategizing, and I think their approach is closer to the Founders original intent, or at least as close as one can get in the presence of a two-party system. If California adopted the same approach, I think a fair number of other states might follow suit, and on balance, I think it would be good for the country.