I don't think much money has been spent on advertising in the upper plains states, so I don't think they'd be less effected. After all, for the Alaskas, Wyomings, and North Dakotas that have only 3 EV, the winner-take-all approach would still apply. But for states such as my own native TN, which has 11 EV, I would imagine the approach would lead to Romney winning the state, but losing the 5th and 9th districts, with possible close votes in the 4th and 8th, meaning there would be more campaigning in the state than what has occurred since 2000. Same would go for California, which despite its 50+ EV, has very little campaigning outside of fundraisers, despite the inland parts of the state being much more Republican-friendly than the coastal cities. The opposite would apply to both larger states like Texas and smaller ones like South Carolina.

It's not a perfect system (none of the proposals would be), but I think it would at least give those superPACs more places to spend their $1 billion+ donations than just a handful of states