I have a speculative mind. I see an isolated fact and start projecting scenarios from it. Is the following indicative of the future of US democratic process? Probably not but it's still worth keeping an eye on just in case. Separately, I think the attitude of this view is also connected to the theme of increasing rights for corporations vs. decreasing rights for individual citizens. From AlterNet: Election 2004: Supreme Disenfranchisement:

"As voting rights scholar and activist attorney Jamin Raskin points out in his recent book, 'Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. the American People,' the current court does not believe in the principle of 'one person, one vote.' Instead it has a decade-long record, in case after case - culminating in their 2000 decision to stop the Florida recount and make George W. Bush president - of disenfranchising voters, limiting the right to vote and making political representation harder for minorities. As Raskin writes, 'Behind Bush v. Gore lies a thick and unprincipled jurisprudence, hostile to popular democracy and protective of race privilege and corporate power.'

Raskin persuasively argues that this Supreme Court has subverted the very democratic principles that millions of new voters believe await them: the right to vote, participate, have access to the ballot, and faith their vote will count. Indeed, in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court wrote, 'the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote' in presidential elections (Bush, 531 U.S. at 104) Moreover, in Bush v. Gore, the court was emphatic that state legislatures have the power to bypass the popular vote and select presidential electors. 'The State
legislature's power to select the manner of appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself.' (Bush, 531 U.S. at 104)"