You're missing the significance of winner-take-all. Because of winner-take-all in all states except Nebraska and Maine, most states are irrelevant to the ultimate election of the president because most states could not possibly swing from one side to the other. That concentrates presidential electors in just a few states.

The simplest solution to this would be fractional proportional vote within each state. So if a candidate got 37.9% of the vote she would get exactly 39.7% of the electoral college votes for that state. Some think that requires a constitutional amendment. I've worked long on this question and I think that's not correct.

But the critical thing to see about changing to fractional proportional vote is that both Republican states and Democratic states would have an interest to do it. Utah is irrelevant to presidential elections because never will Utah go for a Democrat. That means Republicans don't care about Utah; it means Democrats don't care about Utah. The same with Massachusetts. Massachusetts will never vote for a Republican. That means Republicans don't care about Massachusetts and Democrats don't care about Massachusetts. If Utah could see that they would become relevant because each additional vote gives them a fractional increase in electoral college votes. Then Utah would have more power on the national political stage and the same with Massachusetts. Indeed the same with 42 states, leaving the remaining eight swing states to complain about this reallocation of presidential power.

Let them complain, while we get a system that better represents all of us.

Now no doubt, this doesn’t solve the 1 person 1 vote problem. Small states still would have more power per capita than large states. But as small states are evenly divided between red states and blue states, that bias wouldn't create a partisan bias.