During the political period of 2016-20, the idea that liberalism was dominant was exaggerated. Although Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election with a minority of the popular vote, more Americans voted for Republican congressional candidates than Democratic ones. Additionally, more Americans supported right-of-center presidential candidates, including the Libertarian vote, than voted for Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein. While the Republican Party had structural advantages, Democrats were able to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the presidency in 2020, and the Senate in 2021. These wins continued the trend of American politics in the 21st century, characterized by significant shifts every few election cycles rather than the solidification of power by either party. However, after 2024, the political landscape may resemble the challenges faced by liberalism during the Trump era. David Shor, a prominent figure in liberalism, predicts that a combination of an unfavorable Senate map for Democrats along with their existing disadvantages in the Electoral College and Senate could result in a scenario where the party wins a majority of votes but still loses the White House and faces a strong Republican majority in the Senate. This outcome would be alarming for liberals and conservatives alike. Conservatives have been defending institutions such as the Senate and Electoral College by arguing that the United States is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy, as their influence in these institutions has grown in recent years. These arguments become less convincing as the overall results of the system become more undemocratic. The legitimacy of the Electoral College and Senate can withstand close popular vote results and slight party biases, but sustained governing power without majority support can lead to delegitimization and disillusionment. Simply relying on conservative advantages granted by the system is not enough to avoid this future, and the Republican Party should strive to win majorities outright to ensure the perceived legitimacy of conservative governance. It is unrealistic to expect a political party to willingly give up its advantages, such as through a bipartisan constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate. However, the GOP should strive for more electoral ambition, aiming to win elections decisively like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon did, rather than relying on luck. In the current challenging political climate for Democrats, Republicans have the opportunity to address Electoral College concerns by taking reasonable positions, nominating strong candidates, and winning majorities outright. This involves moving away from voter-fraud conspiracy theories and rejecting divisive politics like the "makers versus takers" narrative of the Tea Party era. For example, Republican primary voters in Georgia should consider choosing Brian Kemp over David Perdue in the gubernatorial primary, and rejecting proposals like tax increases for the working class put forth by Sen. Rick Scott in Florida. And it implies - and I worry that the GOP may not be capable of this - choosing a different candidate than Trump in the 2024 election. The Republican Party could potentially increase its Senate or Electoral College majorities due to its structural advantages even if they win popular majorities. This type of magnification is a common aspect of many democratic systems, not just ours. It is distinct from consistently losing the popular vote but still gaining power. As for how the Democrats should address their disadvantages - that is a more extensive conversation, but two quick points for now. First, if the party wants to address its structural challenges through electoral reforms, it must have a clear understanding of which reforms would be effective. During the Biden era, liberal reformers spent time and energy on voting bills that ultimately failed and would not have significantly benefited the party even if they had passed. A more practical reform idea, such as statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, would have been more relevant to the Democrats' challenges in the Senate. Therefore, advocating for an expanded Senate may be a more feasible strategy for liberal activists and legislators when the party is in power. Second, if Democrats hope to achieve greater balance in the Senate and Electoral College without structural reforms, they may 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 goals: to stick to a poll-tested economic policy agenda that goes beyond just being business-friendly like many centrist Democrats, and to consistently set itself apart from organized progressivism on cultural and social issues. This differentiation would not be done tactically like some analysts suggest, but rather through principles. It would be important for voters moving towards the right to see that this faction genuinely believes in its moderation and its criticisms of progressive beliefs, and that its members will continue to challenge progressivism even in Washington. Currently, the Democrats have scattered politicians who somewhat fit this description, but they lack a unifying agenda, donors, and intellectuals to support them. However, necessity may soon force the Democratic Party to come together in this way. Copyright 2022 by The New York Times Company.