Middle Ground regarding EC and Popular Vote

With all the recent discussion about whether we should still use the EC or switch to the Popular Vote (which I do not support, the entire country should get to decide who is president, not just the coasts), I started to think, why not just compromise and do a system in the middle.

The US could still keep the EC and even keep the same numbers, but make it more like the primaries where instead of winner take all it is proportional. This would in theory give all voters more power in terms of electing the president while still keeping the electoral process equal and not giving all the power to the coasts.

Think of it this way, currently California is winner take all and the Republicans have no chance of winning California. That is despite the fact that California is probably around 40% Republican. Instead of the Democrats getting all Electoral Votes from California like they currently do, they would only get 60 percent of the Electoral Votes in California while Republicans would get 40 percent of the Electoral Vote.

Same thing in Texas, Democrats currently have no chance of winning Texas, despite that probably a good 35 percent of Texas votes Democrat. Instead of those votes not mattering at all, Republicans would only get 65 percent of those Electoral Votes instead of getting them all and the Democrats would get 35 percent of the Electoral Votes in Texas.

This would actually help voter turnout as well since in a lot of states a lot of voters probably don't even care because they know their vote means nothing (Republicans in California and New York, Democrats in Texas). This would let those voters actually have a say while still keeping balance between the coasts and the middle of the country.