I keep hearing how blue is front but about every map shows more red?
Can a US person explain.
Each state has 2 senators (Senate) and a number of representatives (House) in relation to the population of that state, but never less than 1 representative. Representatives are elected in districts (subdivisions of states). The Electoral College is made up of "electors" who match the number of senators and representatives for each state. Therefore the states with the lowest populations have minimally 3 electors, and the largest states by population have many more electors (California 55, Texas 38, Florida 29, New York 29 etc). The total of all electors is 538, just as the number of voting members of Congress (Senate + House).
While there are registered Republicans and Democrats (among others) across the country, the areas where Democrats outnumber Republicans are usually on the "coasts" and in urban and suburban areas. Rural areas and the "fly-over country" (the 2/3's center of the continent) are majority Republican. The exception is that certain states are majority Republican in almost all areas, which are a few southern states and "fly-over country".
So, when looking at the map as physical area, more red covers the map because there is more "fly-over country" than the coasts and urban areas, but comparatively these are also lower population states.
Because the USA's election system is undemocratic. Unlike most developed countries, where a person is elected based on the total number of votes per citizen, the USA's system depends on electoral votes ...
Our election system is democratic. It's preposterous to state otherwise.
We cast our votes for President by raw vote in each state. The candidate who is first-past-the-post in the raw vote wins that state. As a consequence of that win, the party representing that candidate sends their electors to Washington DC to cast the votes of those electors in the Electoral College. This is nearly a problem-free process and has yet presented no particular problems.
Some argue the Electoral College is archaic. It was established in times where information traveled very slowly and unreliably (the 1700s), and to account for circumstances that suddenly changed the electors can react and cast a different vote if that's what makes the most sense. What if the chosen President had died the day after the election? Gotta choose someone else, and quick. (Our Constitution only says that the Vice President takes office upon the death of the President, but if the winning candidates haven't taken their oaths of office, the VP-elect cannot automatically take over -- he or she would have to be voted upon by ... the Electoral College.)
In the past 100 years, information has traveled faster and nowadays at the speed of light to the fingertips of anyone with a smart phone. The original purpose of electors has been greatly diminished, but it has been replaced with the need to simplify the voting process in a much larger and more complex country than envisioned in 1787. For example, in 2000 the Electoral College limited the argument about how votes were cast (or how many votes were cast) to Florida. That was the only state where the raw vote was sufficiently close. If the Electoral College didn't exist and a candidate could win solely on raw vote, candidates and other interested persons could totally wreck the election process by demanding recounts and ballot inspections in thousands of districts all across the country. In that circumstance, every vote would count equally but every vote would be an invitation to chaos.
The circumstances of the 2000 election show how the distribution of population in the US is not evenly represented by each elector. The number of electors for each state is adjusted after the completion of every decennial census. Between census reports, the populations of each state can change substantially, and by the nature of the system even a state like Wyoming (pop. 580K) still gets one full representative when other slightly more populated states are stuck with only one representative. The 2000 election showed that Al Gore won the popular (raw) vote but since the electors cannot be evenly distributed the election was reduced to a fight for votes in Florida.
A solution to this problem could be to have a greater number of electors to more accurately represent the population of each state, but it still would not be evenly divided, and in no circumstance do you want to have a tied vote. By giving one elector to every raw vote cast, you would likely end up with chaos (as previously noted).
Our system is no less democratic than the Queen appointing a Prime Minister based on the party with the most elected MPs, and some would argue it is more democratic. Both systems function fine in their own right even if they have their own quirks.
... and some other crap that paves the way for gerrymandering and other such "questionable" practices.
Gerrymandering is a problem for both Democrats and Republicans, but the Republicans have been more successful at it rendering some states a greater "red" than actually their due.
There is no question my state is gerrymandered by Democrats in favor of Democrats. It is a solidly "blue" state, and it is the state with the highest household incomes, among the lowest unemployment and the best performing school systems. However, if we look to a state such as Kansas which is thoroughly controlled by Republicans, the opposite is true. These two examples could merely be coincidences or they could be products of their own ideologies, or it could be luck. Of particular note is California
. The control of California is locked by Democrats. Not only is the governor a Democrat, but the Democrats have supermajorities in both the state bodies (senate and house), which sidelines the Republicans. They are totally irrelevant. If every elected Republican in the state bodies decided to never show up for work, there would still be a quorum of Democrats to conduct business. For all its ills, California is doing fine. It's the 7th largest economy in the world, if measured all by itself. Compare to Kansas where the economy has actually shrunk. But, I digress ...
I would like to get rid of gerrymandering, but that's a political hot potato that is not likely to be poked unless it happens to go to SCOTUS.