Is it fair to say the Republican Party is a party that is undemocratic?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Republicans struggle to win the popular vote nationally on any level.

In the House, they haven't won it outside of wave years in 2010 and 2014, as well as 2016 when there were a lot of uncontested seats. Despite this, they won the House easily in 2012. They would likely have won the House in 2020 had some of their gerrymanders not been resolved in the courts.

In the Senate, Republicans have lost the compiled Senate vote since 2004. The compiled 2016/2018/2020 Senate vote is about D+10, and yet, Democrats only have a bare majority because of a run-off law in GA and a NH Senate race that came down to 1000 votes.

On the Presidential level, they have lost the popular vote in 7/8 last Presidential elections, and yet have won the Presidency 3/8 times. The one time they won it was narrowly in 2004 thanks to a popular incumbent. In 2020, Trump almost won re-election despite losing the popular vote by close to 5 points.

On the state level, Republicans have gerrymandered certain legislatures to the point where they can control supermajorities when they lose the popular vote. In Wisconsin for instance, the tipping point in the legistlature voted more than 20 points to the right of the state. That is not normal.

I understand that we don't live in a direct Democracy, but is this really any better?

It does get me annoyed that a lot of Republicans who talk about "freedom" and "tyrannical governments" are supporting the party that gains so much of their power with minority rule.

In my view, Democrats must pass some sort of redistricting reform while they have the power; force Republicans to actually have to win the most votes to win power, because if they don't, Republicans are going to end up turning against Democracy itself.

[Nyvin]

There's also absolutely no movement toward redistricting reform in Republican controlled states outside of ballot initiatives.   Democratic legislatures actually have passed redistricting reform both as ballot questions and through the legislatures like in Virginia, New York, and now one in New Mexico.

Republicans seem intent on utilizing their power to maximize seats at any cost really.   I think this is because they understand that they can't win with fair maps everywhere,  they'd probably end up at a disadvantage if there was no gerrymandering, which is kinda pathetic if you think about it.

[DC Al Fine]

Republicans struggle to win the popular vote nationally on any level.

In the House, they haven't won it outside of wave years in 2010 and 2014, as well as 2016 when there were a lot of uncontested seats. Despite this, they won the House easily in 2012. They would likely have won the House in 2020 had some of their gerrymanders not been resolved in the courts.

In the Senate, Republicans have lost the compiled Senate vote since 2004. The compiled 2016/2018/2020 Senate vote is about D+10, and yet, Democrats only have a bare majority because of a run-off law in GA and a NH Senate race that came down to 1000 votes.

On the Presidential level, they have lost the popular vote in 7/8 last Presidential elections, and yet have won the Presidency 3/8 times. The one time they won it was narrowly in 2004 thanks to a popular incumbent. In 2020, Trump almost won re-election despite losing the popular vote by close to 5 points.

On the state level, Republicans have gerrymandered certain legislatures to the point where they can control supermajorities when they lose the popular vote. In Wisconsin for instance, the tipping point in the legistlature voted more than 20 points to the right of the state. That is not normal.

I understand that we don't live in a direct Democracy, but is this really any better?

It does get me annoyed that a lot of Republicans who talk about "freedom" and "tyrannical governments" are supporting the party that gains so much of their power with minority rule.

In my view, Democrats must pass some sort of redistricting reform while they have the power; force Republicans to actually have to win the most votes to win power, because if they don't, Republicans are going to end up turning against Democracy itself.

I won't argue about gerrymandering and what not, but would you consider the current Liberal Party of Canada mandate illegitimate by your standards? Self-packing under FPTP, does not somehow make the winner less democratic.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Republicans struggle to win the popular vote nationally on any level.

In the House, they haven't won it outside of wave years in 2010 and 2014, as well as 2016 when there were a lot of uncontested seats. Despite this, they won the House easily in 2012. They would likely have won the House in 2020 had some of their gerrymanders not been resolved in the courts.

In the Senate, Republicans have lost the compiled Senate vote since 2004. The compiled 2016/2018/2020 Senate vote is about D+10, and yet, Democrats only have a bare majority because of a run-off law in GA and a NH Senate race that came down to 1000 votes.

On the Presidential level, they have lost the popular vote in 7/8 last Presidential elections, and yet have won the Presidency 3/8 times. The one time they won it was narrowly in 2004 thanks to a popular incumbent. In 2020, Trump almost won re-election despite losing the popular vote by close to 5 points.

On the state level, Republicans have gerrymandered certain legislatures to the point where they can control supermajorities when they lose the popular vote. In Wisconsin for instance, the tipping point in the legistlature voted more than 20 points to the right of the state. That is not normal.

I understand that we don't live in a direct Democracy, but is this really any better?

It does get me annoyed that a lot of Republicans who talk about "freedom" and "tyrannical governments" are supporting the party that gains so much of their power with minority rule.

In my view, Democrats must pass some sort of redistricting reform while they have the power; force Republicans to actually have to win the most votes to win power, because if they don't, Republicans are going to end up turning against Democracy itself.

I won't argue about gerrymandering and what not, but would you consider the current Liberal Party of Canada mandate illegitimate by your standards? Self-packing under FPTP, does not somehow make the winner less democratic.

Honestly, I don't follow Canadian politics enough to say.

I'm not saying that the Republican party is illegitimate, just that they don't try to get a moral mandate of winning the most votes.

[walleye26]

I would say so. Consider the following:
-In Wisconsin, where I live, in 2018 Dems won 54% of the assembly vote. They got 36% of the seats.
-GOP gerrymandering efforts are exceptionally brutal, Democrats not as much since it’s harder to crack cities
-GOP consistently tries to restrict voting (see TX ballot Dropbox fiasco this year)
-Extensive, aggressive push to confirm as many judges as possible to maintain their power
-Willingness to break democratic norms and brazen political power.

[Beet]

The Republicans do what they can to win. They know how to play the game. If the Democrats were smart, they would do the same thing.

[Roll Roons]

Part of the problem is that Democrats' coalition in the past few years has been really inefficient. Hillary got California to swing left by 7 points, and Biden got similar swings from Maryland and Massachusetts. That does jack for them in the Electoral College and Senate. And while Texas may be getting closer, it still has a ways to go before it actually flips.

Their Senate majority in the 113th Congress included Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota. All of these states used to regularly elect Democratic Senators, but are now pretty much out of reach. They need to figure out why that is. And of course, they've continued to fall short in Florida and North Carolina. These states are only light red. If they can hold onto a Senate seat in West Virginia, arguably the Trumpiest state in the country, there's no excuse for losing one in Florida in the same cycle.

They have the same issues in states. In Wisconsin, Democrats are almost entirely packed into Milwaukee and Madison. Maybe I'm wrong, but in a fair map, I feel like it's just not really possible to draw a third Democratic-leaning congressional district.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Part of the problem is that Democrats' coalition in the past few years has been really inefficient. Hillary got California to swing left by 7 points, and Biden got similar swings from Maryland and Massachusetts. That does jack for them in the Electoral College and Senate. And while Texas may be getting closer, it still has a ways to go before it actually flips.

Their Senate majority in the 113th Congress included Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota. All of these states used to regularly elect Democratic Senators, but are now pretty much out of reach. They need to figure out why that is. And of course, they've continued to fall short in Florida and North Carolina. These states are only light red. If they can hold onto a Senate seat in West Virginia, arguably the Trumpiest state in the country, there's no excuse for losing one in Florida in the same cycle.

They have the same issues in states. In Wisconsin, Democrats are almost entirely packed into Milwaukee and Madison. Maybe I'm wrong, but in a fair map, I feel like it's just not really possible to draw a third Democratic-leaning congressional district.

There isn't any necessary reason aside from tradition why WI-1 taking in bits of Waukesha is better than WI-5 taking in Ozaukee and letting WI-1 take more of Milwaukee County.

Democrats are certainly packed and the alternative configurations would only get tried out for partisan reasons, but if they already existed there wouldn't be an urgent need to change them.

[Alcibiades]

Part of the problem is that Democrats' coalition in the past few years has been really inefficient. Hillary got California to swing left by 7 points, and Biden got similar swings from Maryland and Massachusetts. That does jack for them in the Electoral College and Senate. And while Texas may be getting closer, it still has a ways to go before it actually flips.

Their Senate majority in the 113th Congress included Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota. All of these states used to regularly elect Democratic Senators, but are now pretty much out of reach. They need to figure out why that is. And of course, they've continued to fall short in Florida and North Carolina. These states are only light red. If they can hold onto a Senate seat in West Virginia, arguably the Trumpiest state in the country, there's no excuse for losing one in Florida in the same cycle.

They have the same issues in states. In Wisconsin, Democrats are almost entirely packed into Milwaukee and Madison. Maybe I'm wrong, but in a fair map, I feel like it's just not really possible to draw a third Democratic-leaning congressional district.

For this reason, I find it strange that the Democrats never bring up scrapping FPTP, which obviously puts them at a disadvantage. Perhaps other voting systems are just seen as too alien a concept for America.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Part of the problem is that Democrats' coalition in the past few years has been really inefficient. Hillary got California to swing left by 7 points, and Biden got similar swings from Maryland and Massachusetts. That does jack for them in the Electoral College and Senate. And while Texas may be getting closer, it still has a ways to go before it actually flips.

Their Senate majority in the 113th Congress included Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota. All of these states used to regularly elect Democratic Senators, but are now pretty much out of reach. They need to figure out why that is. And of course, they've continued to fall short in Florida and North Carolina. These states are only light red. If they can hold onto a Senate seat in West Virginia, arguably the Trumpiest state in the country, there's no excuse for losing one in Florida in the same cycle.

They have the same issues in states. In Wisconsin, Democrats are almost entirely packed into Milwaukee and Madison. Maybe I'm wrong, but in a fair map, I feel like it's just not really possible to draw a third Democratic-leaning congressional district.

There isn't any necessary reason aside from tradition why WI-1 taking in bits of Waukesha is better than WI-5 taking in Ozaukee and letting WI-1 take more of Milwaukee County.

Democrats are certainly packed and the alternative configurations would only get tried out for partisan reasons, but if they already existed there wouldn't be an urgent need to change them.

A 3D-5R map is very possible, but it's still hard to get 2 truly D seats out of Madison area without some very creative lines.

[Alcibiades]

3. Atlas tells me that the GOP came out ahead in the national Senate vote in 2010, 2014, and 2020. Wikipedia also tells me that Republicans came out ahead in the 2020 Senate vote. (I don't think this is all that meaningful a number, but you seem to have that fact wrong.) In other words, they've come out ahead in exactly half of the last six elections. Arbitrarily writing off two of those because they were "landslides" makes no sense.

Well, the GOP won a clear majority of seats up for election in each of those three years, in fact they won a higher percentage of seats than vote in all of them.

The problem really is with the US electoral system, regardless of which party it benefits (mostly the GOP in modern times, but this could change). Of the three federal electoral systems used, not one is as democratic as it could be, which renders the argument that they counterbalance each other moot: the Electoral College is bizarre and arcane, the Senate is hideously malapportioned, and the House uses FPTP, made worse by gerrymandering.

[Nyvin]

The Class 2 Senate map naturally favors Republicans in regards to the raw total vote with so many southern states and no NY or CA.

Class 1 favors Democrats in the raw vote due to so many northeastern states and much fewer southern ones.

Class 3 is kinda a wash between the two parties.

I believe Republicans won both of the last class two elections (2014, 2020) just by the nature of the map.   It'd take an election like 2008 for Democrats to win the raw total vote on that map, which obviously won't happen often.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Relevant counterpoints - I'm not arguing that Republicans don't have many structural advantages, but the conventional wisdom overrates them somewhat.

1. The pattern doesn't hold at all in gubernatorial elections, where Republicans usually come out ahead in national vote totals. (I believe this is also the case for state legislative elections but can't find a number to confirm.)

2. Recent presidential elections have remained close by historical standards, and some of the GOP disadvantage is a product of their candidates' weak personal popularity. George W. Bush is the only recent Republican nominee to have held a personal favorability advantage over his Democratic opponent. This isn't totally exogenous to the party's popularity, obviously, but it does have some independent relevance.

3. Atlas tells me that the GOP came out ahead in the national Senate vote in 2010, 2014, and 2020. Wikipedia also tells me that Republicans came out ahead in the 2020 Senate vote. (I don't think this is all that meaningful a number, but you seem to have that fact wrong.) In other words, they've come out ahead in exactly half of the last six elections. Arbitrarily writing off two of those because they were "landslides" makes no sense.

4. The House numbers merit some scrutiny:

     Vote share / Seat share (bold means plurality/majority)
2020: 48% / 49% (+1)
2018: 45% / 46% (+1)
2016: 49% / 55% (+6)
2014: 51% / 57% (+6)
2012: 48% / 54% (+6)
2010: 52% / 56% (+4)
2008: 43% / 41% (-2)

This shows that (A) Republicans have a structural advantage in the House, but (B) it is not actually counter majoritarian, and (D) it weakened once Trump came into office. Moreover, it's not as if they're consistently coming out behind in the national aggregate. They've won it with two majorities and an additional plurality since 2010.

All fair counterpoints, but for #3 I was using the compiled Senate PV of the past 3 cycles. When I say the Senate PV for 2012 for instance, that is 2012 + 2010 + 2008, since in individual years, the seats that are up can throw it off balance

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably

[Samof94]

3. Atlas tells me that the GOP came out ahead in the national Senate vote in 2010, 2014, and 2020. Wikipedia also tells me that Republicans came out ahead in the 2020 Senate vote. (I don't think this is all that meaningful a number, but you seem to have that fact wrong.) In other words, they've come out ahead in exactly half of the last six elections. Arbitrarily writing off two of those because they were "landslides" makes no sense.

Well, the GOP won a clear majority of seats up for election in each of those three years, in fact they won a higher percentage of seats than vote in all of them.

The problem really is with the US electoral system, regardless of which party it benefits (mostly the GOP in modern times, but this could change). Of the three federal electoral systems used, not one is as democratic as it could be, which renders the argument that they counterbalance each other moot: the Electoral College is bizarre and arcane, the Senate is hideously malapportioned, and the House uses FPTP, made worse by gerrymandering.

Their voters are better distributed given they tend to be the majority in more states. Nobody is talking about taking away polls in white majority counties and neighborhoods that look Trumpy.

[Non Swing Voter]

Part of the problem is that Democrats' coalition in the past few years has been really inefficient. Hillary got California to swing left by 7 points, and Biden got similar swings from Maryland and Massachusetts. That does jack for them in the Electoral College and Senate. And while Texas may be getting closer, it still has a ways to go before it actually flips.

Their Senate majority in the 113th Congress included Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota. All of these states used to regularly elect Democratic Senators, but are now pretty much out of reach. They need to figure out why that is. And of course, they've continued to fall short in Florida and North Carolina. These states are only light red. If they can hold onto a Senate seat in West Virginia, arguably the Trumpiest state in the country, there's no excuse for losing one in Florida in the same cycle.

They have the same issues in states. In Wisconsin, Democrats are almost entirely packed into Milwaukee and Madison. Maybe I'm wrong, but in a fair map, I feel like it's just not really possible to draw a third Democratic-leaning congressional district.

I agree with your premise but people were making the same arguments about Arizona and Georgia last time.  Some of the trends are slow but they are real.  The precarious situation Republicans are in is that once these states flip they're probably gone for a long time (like Virginia and Colorado).  So you essentially replace two conservative senators with two polar opposite liberal ones.  It's not like a typical battleground state situation where it's going to be a centrist on either side. 

The efficiency of the GOP vote has bought them some more time but it's hardly sustainable. 

The other issue with losing the popular vote massively is that there are a lot of wealthy donors in states like NY/CA/MD/IL/MA/WA etc. etc.  It wasn't a fluke or an anti-Trump backlash that caused Dems to outraise the GOP by wild sums.  There are more Dems nationwide and they represent wealthier states with more disposable income.  This counteracts some of the other GOP advantages.

[Idaho Conservative]

Part of the problem is that Democrats' coalition in the past few years has been really inefficient. Hillary got California to swing left by 7 points, and Biden got similar swings from Maryland and Massachusetts. That does jack for them in the Electoral College and Senate. And while Texas may be getting closer, it still has a ways to go before it actually flips.

Their Senate majority in the 113th Congress included Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota. All of these states used to regularly elect Democratic Senators, but are now pretty much out of reach. They need to figure out why that is. And of course, they've continued to fall short in Florida and North Carolina. These states are only light red. If they can hold onto a Senate seat in West Virginia, arguably the Trumpiest state in the country, there's no excuse for losing one in Florida in the same cycle.

They have the same issues in states. In Wisconsin, Democrats are almost entirely packed into Milwaukee and Madison. Maybe I'm wrong, but in a fair map, I feel like it's just not really possible to draw a third Democratic-leaning congressional district.

I agree with your premise but people were making the same arguments about Arizona and Georgia last time.  Some of the trends are slow but they are real.  The precarious situation Republicans are in is that once these states flip they're probably gone for a long time (like Virginia and Colorado).  So you essentially replace two conservative senators with two polar opposite liberal ones.  It's not like a typical battleground state situation where it's going to be a centrist on either side. 

The efficiency of the GOP vote has bought them some more time but it's hardly sustainable. 

The other issue with losing the popular vote massively is that there are a lot of wealthy donors in states like NY/CA/MD/IL/MA/WA etc. etc.  It wasn't a fluke or an anti-Trump backlash that caused Dems to outraise the GOP by wild sums.  There are more Dems nationwide and they represent wealthier states with more disposable income.  This counteracts some of the other GOP advantages.

The GOP definitely needs to become the party of campaign finance reform.  It would be a double edged sword, both increasing their popularity (Americans overwhelmingly want big money out of politics) as well as crippling the Dem's fundraising advantage.  Republicans have long opposed this because of a concern it would help Dems, but that's no longer the case.