I'd still prefer the Maine/Nebraska method, but this ain't too bad an idea.  

I'd have to think that in order to balance out the numbers for proportionality to make sense, you'd want to look at election returns for a decent length of time, and get a feel for how the states historically have shaken out, at least as far as margin of victory goes.  I don't think it matters much if elephant or donkey dominate a state, or the states tend to move around support.  

I guess if the states typically are decided 55/45, you wouldn't want to stretch out the numbers so far that a candidate can lose 65/35 and still pick up some numbers.  But, if the loser gets to something like a 51/49 gap, you'd want the numbers only slightly favoring the winner, because the loser exceeded the numbers typically turned in by that state's losing candidate.  

Too me, this can work, but it isn't as simple to explain or sell to people and candidates as the Maine/Nebraska system.  No real historical study, complicated formulas, or anything like that.  Just simple points for results in regions.  

Just take into account that I am not in the US, So my views come from a European way of thinking. But your system is insanely more complicated than it needs to be.

The best way is extremely simple way, you don't need to look back at all.

Lets say a state has 10 districts (just for easy maths sake)

if obama wins 7 and romney wins 3, then obama gets 7 electoral seats and romney gets 3. then you move on to the next state. Its such a simple system, it doesnt make sense to have a 51%/49% vote split, and the 51% get all the electoral seats, its an insane version of a majority system. in the districts themselves there will be splits like that, they could get 51/49 in a district, but that is likely to balance out if its 49/51 in the next district.

you still have simple majority, or FPTP for each district, but when your adding up the entire state, it should be more proportinal, to represent what the state actually thinks, instead of 49% of the population voting democrat, and giving all its electoral seats to a republican, or visa-versa.

Now THIS is logic that's hard to argue against. 

In video game terms:

Each state is worth N points where N is based on its population. The winner of the state gets those points. You have to win over half the points to win the election.

The founding fathers foresaw the day of a video game that would make use of that and put into place this system for that day.

That does it for me.  

Frogboy for President in 2012.  Forget Romney.  Forget Obama.  Stick with the person who clearly sees THE most critical issue our day...political entertainment.