Despite the Obama Win, I Still Call for an End to Winner Take All

I continue to wonder why only Main and Nebraska renounce the winner take all approach to a presidential election and do it the way it should be done, have the winner of each congressional district win that district alone, then the two extra votes go to the winner of the state. This splits the difference between a pure popular vote, while maintaining the integrity and purpose of the electoral college in giving the smaller states power.
There is no way to pass an Amendment that gets rid of the Electoral College, the small states would never support it, but one might be able to pass a tiered Amendment since it still leaves the small states in play. The question is if the Federal Government could mandate that all the States go to a tiered system without a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution says the States can choose their own method of selecting electors, the question becomes if detailing how those electors are used would violate the Constitution or not. I have recently thought that perhaps it can’t and that an Amendment would indeed be needed to force a tiered system. In Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)., the Supreme Court ruled that electors are functionaries of the state and subject to the state’s rules and governess. So unfortunately the difficult process of an Amendment would probably be needed, but I still think it would pass, especially if it included clauses to prevent faithless electors, and some states would probably want clauses to prevent Gerrymandering (the redrawing of district maps to favor a particular outcome) which would be a far more tricky part to write.