During the political period of 2016-20, the idea that liberalism was dominant was exaggerated. Although Donald Trump secured the presidency in 2016 with a minority of the popular vote, more Americans voted for Republican congressional candidates than Democrats. Additionally, more Americans supported right-of-center presidential candidates, including the Libertarian party, over Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein. While Republicans had structural advantages, Democrats were still able to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2018 and the presidency in 2020 and the Senate in 2021. These successes continued the trend of American politics in the 21st century, characterized by significant shifts every few election cycles rather than one party dominating. However, after 2024, the political landscape may resemble the challenges faced by liberalism during the Trump era. David Shor, a prominent figure in liberalism, has predicted that due to a combination of factors such as an unfavorable Senate map for Democrats and existing disadvantages in the Electoral College and Senate, the party could win a majority of votes in Congress and the presidency but still lose the White House and face a strong Republican majority in the Senate. This scenario would be a nightmare for liberals, but conservatives should not be pleased either. Conservatives have increasingly supported institutions like the Senate and Electoral College by arguing that the United States is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. However, as the overall results of the system become increasingly undemocratic, these arguments lose credibility. For example, if state legislatures were to override voters in their states, the arguments in favor of the system would not hold up. The Electoral College and Senate can maintain legitimacy when results are close, but if one party consistently holds power without majority support, it leads to delegitimization and disillusionment. Simply relying on the system's advantages is not enough to ensure conservative governance is seen as legitimate; instead, the Republican Party should strive to win majorities outright. A political party will not willingly give up its advantages, and it is unlikely that there will ever be a bipartisan agreement to abolish the Senate. However, it is reasonable to expect a party to be more ambitious in seeking electoral victories, as exemplified by past successful leaders like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. In the current challenging political climate, Republicans have the opportunity to address concerns about the Electoral College by taking reasonable positions, selecting strong candidates, and winning elections outright. This includes avoiding voter-fraud paranoia and rejecting divisive politics like those of the Tea Party era. For example, Republican primary voters could make a positive choice by selecting Brian Kemp over David Perdue in the Georgia gubernatorial primary. It suggests the possibility of the GOP nominating someone other than Trump in 2024, which may be challenging for the party. Winning popular majorities could still enhance their Senate or Electoral College majorities due to structural advantages, but this is a common occurrence in democratic systems. It contrasts with consistently losing the popular vote yet still gaining power. As for addressing the Democrats' disadvantages, that is a more extensive conversation, but two initial points can be made. First, if the party is looking to address its structural challenges, it needs to have a clear understanding of what electoral reforms would be effective. During the Biden era, liberal reformers spent time and energy on voting bills that ultimately did not pass and would not have significantly benefited the party if they had been successful. Another reform idea, granting statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, may not have been achievable at that time but would have been more responsive to the challenges facing Democrats in the Senate. Therefore, advocating for an expanded Senate may be a more realistic strategy for liberal activists and legislators when their party is in power. Second, if Democrats want to achieve greater parity in the Senate and Electoral College without structural reform, they may need to focus on winning back culturally conservative Latino and working-class white voters who were part of Barack Obama's coalition but have since shifted towards the right. The faction would have two main goals: following a carefully tested economic policy agenda that differs from centrist Democrats and actively setting themselves apart from organized progressivism on social and cultural issues. It is important that they do this not just for strategic reasons but as a matter of principle, showing voters that they truly believe in their moderate stance and will challenge progressive ideals even once in office. While there are currently scattered politicians who align with this faction, there is a need for a cohesive agenda, funding from donors, and support from intellectuals. However, necessity may force the Democratic Party to address this issue in the near future. Copyright 2022 by The New York Times Company.