In most states, presidential elections are fairly simple. Whichever candidate garners the most votes wins all of that state's electoral votes. There are two tiny exceptions (Maine and Nebraska), but that's typically how it works. President Obama won a majority of votes in Pennsylvania, so he got all 20 of its electoral votes.

Over the past year, however, a number of Republican lawmakers in blue states have been pushing an alternative system. The states would split their electoral votes between different candidates. As Dave Weigel points out, this was first floated by conservatives in Ohio and Pennsylvania before the 2012 election, only to get shot down. But now the idea's steadily making a comeback. So let's look at some of the different proposals here — as well as what effect they would have had on the 2012 presidential election.

Pennsylvania I: Last year, Republican State Senate Leader Dominic Pileggi proposed a bill that would have allocated electoral votes depending on the number of congressional districts each candidate won. (Nebraska and Maine both do this.) The overall winner of the state then gets two extra electoral votes.

This would have benefited Mitt Romney and the Republicans significantly. Pennsylvania is a blue state — a majority of voters cast ballots for both Obama and House Democrats in 2012. But because Republicans controlled the legislature and drew the district lines, they've managed to gerrymander things so that they now control 13 of 18 congressional districts. (This is a fairly common practice.)

The end result? Under Pileggi's initial plan, Romney would have won 13 electoral votes and Obama would have won seven — even though Obama carried the state. Needless to say, that idea was deeply divisive and ended up getting shelved.

Pennsylvania II: But never fear, Pileggi's back with a new proposal. This time around, he's suggesting that Pennsylvania split its electoral votes based on the split in the popular vote. The popular-vote winner would then get two extra votes. That, Pileggi said, would "much more accurately reflect the will of the voters in our state." Under this plan, in the 2012 election Obama would have received 12 electoral votes from Pennsylvania while Romney would have received 8.

Ohio: After the 2012 election, Secretary of State Jon Husted also suggested divvying up Ohio's electoral votes by congressional district. Again, because Republicans have employed gerrymandering to give themselves more seats in a blue state, this would likely benefit the GOP presidential candidate. Under Husted's plan, Obama would have won the popular vote in Ohio, but Romney would have garnered 12 of the state's electoral votes, while Obama would have received just six.

Virginia: Ari Berman points to another recent proposal from Virginia State Sen. Charles Carrico Sr. This one goes much further than any of the above plans. Electoral votes get divided by congressional district. On top of that, another two electoral votes would go to the candidate who wins the most districts. So, in 2012, Obama won the popular vote in Virginia. But under Carrico's plan, Romney would have received 9 electoral votes and Obama would have received just 4.

One common argument for these plans is that it gives rural voters a greater voice; Dave Weigel dissects that strange logic here. But there's also an undeniable partisan appeal. As Berman points out, if GOP-controlled legislatures in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania had all adopted versions of this vote-splitting plan, then Romney would have won the White House with 270 electoral votes in 2012.

And an alternative — the National Popular Vote: The proposals above are pretty crass. But if anyone's looking for a more principled way to reform the electoral college, there's always the National Popular Vote to consider. Under this proposal, states would pledge to award all of their electoral votes to whichever candidate won the popular vote nationwide. But the plan wouldn't take effect until enough states (adding up to 270 electoral votes) signed the pledge.

In practice, this proposal would mean that whichever candidate won the most votes nationwide would then become president. The electoral college would effectively render itself null. A huge difference, of course, is that the National Popular Vote is a national-level reform, rather than an ad hoc effort to siphon away electoral votes from a few blue states.

Today on the Dish, Andrew laid out his ideal fiscal cliff solution, noting that he now believes an additional stimulus should be included. He also continued to take on the torture in Zero Dark Thirty's plot, pointed out that Obama definitely has a mandate to wield against the GOP on tax rates, spoke with Carl Swanson about adjusting to NYC, and stood by his Federalist ideals -- even when it came to marriage equality.

In political coverage, we published more letters from millennial voters, this time weighing in on their generation's economic and employment concerns, while other readers responded to Mitch Daniels' Federalism, R.M. reminded us how little an effect tax rates or the Medicare eligibility age will actually have on the debt, Michael "pre-chalkboard" Moynihan reviewed Glenn Beck's business prowess, and Bouie and Bernstein wondered if the GOP could get by with only a superficial makeover. Also, David Frum pwned Marc Thiessen, Dylan Matthews suggested more sensible "scheduling" of illegal drugs, Aaron Carroll did a life-expectancy reality check regarding the Medicare eligibility age discussion, and we again considered the economics of having children, as well as tried to guess which SCOTUS judges were itching to take on Prop 8. Looking overseas, Millman dismissed any possible one-state solution for Israel and Palestine, Melanie Kirkpatrick reported on the setup of North Korea's underground railroad, and the (translated) Prime Minster of Cambodia supported gay and lesbian speed-limit adherence.

In assorted coverage, Mark Hertsgaard sounded the alarm over climate change's impact on wheat, Bill Nye proved climate change was real, a reader pushed back on the idea of micropayments for journalism, Roben Farzad broke down the success of the fund manager Vanguard, Penn Jillette defended the use of "Happy Holidays", and Judith Shulevitz worried about the fewer years parents who delay having kids will be able to give those kids once they become adults. Vaclav Smil debunked the dream of the electric car, Laura Beck called out Weight Watchers for being ineffective, Louis Menand offered his take on the prevalence and importance of homework, Kirsten Hively explained the magic of classic neon signs (and hoped we would help her preserve them), and more readers wrote in to join our Roid Age discussion about the modern bodies of men and women. We also aired more debate about the prospects of tablet-only journalism, discovered that algorithms have biases, and loved to hate how well a toilet handled not only hot dogs, but a surprisingly-specific number of chicken nuggets. Buzzfeed rounded up the year in perfectly-timed photographs in our MHB, Dick Butkus went to Washington in our FOTD, and it was pleasant in Pleasanton through the VFYW.

Don't forget to help us decide what to ask David Kuo here.

- C. D.