During the political period from 2016 to 2020, the belief that liberalism was dominant was exaggerated. Although Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election with fewer popular votes, more Americans voted for Republican congressional candidates than Democratic candidates. Additionally, more Americans voted for right-of-center presidential candidates, including the Libertarian vote, than for Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein. In terms of majority rule, liberalism did not deserve to win in 2016, even though Trump may not have deserved to win. Despite Republican advantages, Democrats were able to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the presidency in 2020, and the Senate in 2021. The victories that occurred continued the trend seen in American politics in the 21st century, with significant shifts happening every few election cycles, rather than one party gaining long-term power. However, after 2024, the political landscape may resemble the challenges faced by liberalism during the Trump era. According to David Shor, a prominent figure in liberalism, a combination of an unfavorable Senate map for Democrats and their existing disadvantages in the Electoral College and Senate could lead to a situation where the party wins a majority of the popular vote in Congress and the presidency, but still loses the White House and faces a strong Republican majority in the Senate. This outcome would be a cause for concern for liberals, but conservatives should also be wary. In recent years, conservatives have emphasized the importance of institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College, arguing that the United States is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. However, these arguments become less convincing as the system becomes more consistently undemocratic. The legitimacy of the Electoral College can withstand a close popular vote result going the other way, as can the Senate if it slightly favors one party but changes hands regularly. But if one party maintains power without majority support, it will lead to delegitimization and disillusionment. Simply relying on conservative columnists to defend the constitutional significance of state sovereignty will not be enough to address this issue. The Republican Party must strive to win majorities outright to avoid undermining the perceived legitimacy of conservative governance. A political party is unlikely to willingly give up its advantages, and there will never be a bipartisan constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate. However, it is reasonable to expect a party to strive for more electoral success, similar to past presidents like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, rather than relying on luck. In the current challenging political climate, the Republicans have an opportunity to win elections outright by taking reasonable positions and nominating strong candidates. This includes rejecting voter-fraud paranoia and moving away from divisive politics like the Tea Party era's "makers versus takers" ideology. And it indicates - and I am concerned that the GOP may not be able to do this - selecting a different candidate than Trump in 2024. Even if the Republican Party were able to secure popular majorities, their Senate or Electoral College majorities could still be increased due to their structural advantages. This kind of increase is common in many democratic systems, not just in the United States. It is distinct from consistently losing the popular vote but still gaining power. As for how the Democrats should address their shortcomings - that is a more extensive conversation, but two quick points for now. First, if the party wants to address its structural challenges, it needs to have a clear understanding of what type of electoral reforms would be effective. During the Biden era, liberal reformers focused on voting bills that ultimately did not pass and would not have significantly helped the party even if they had been successful. Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, although not feasible at the moment, would address the challenges facing Democrats in the Senate. Therefore, pushing for an expanded Senate may be a more practical strategy for liberal activists and legislators. Second, if Democrats want to regain parity in the Senate and Electoral College without structural reform, they need to focus on appealing to culturally conservative Latinos and working-class whites who were part of Barack Obama's coalition but have since shifted towards the right. The faction would have two main objectives: to stick to a tested agenda on economic policy that differs from the business-friendly agenda supported by many centrist Democrats, and to consistently set itself apart from organized progressivism on cultural and social issues. It is crucial for this faction to do so based on principles rather than tactical strategies, so that voters who lean right can see that this faction truly believes in its moderation and its criticism of progressive beliefs, and that its members will continue to challenge progressivism even after they are elected. Currently, there are scattered politicians within the Democratic Party who somewhat align with this faction, but they lack a unified agenda, financial support from donors, and intellectual backing. However, necessity may soon force the Democratic Party to come together and address these issues. Copyright 2022 by The New York Times Company.