Like all that meaningful reform we had back when the Supreme Court picked the president?

I have a confession: I wasn't old and/or aware enough that I could accurately describe the mood after that happened. 9/11 is the moment I really woke up and said "Hey, I should pay attention to this stuff." Before that I was just aping my parents.

My impression is that people were upset and frustrated, but that you couldn't describe half the country as livid. If you voted outside of Florida, your vote counted for what it was (if you managed to live in a swing state). The court tipped the election, but they only changed the results of one state. How wrong is that impression? I don't remember mass protests about the 2000 election.

I do think that the loosing side across the entire nation would be livid if it went to the house in place of a run off. The House are a bunch of clowns, and their approval ratings might as well be a rounding error. Not to mention the fact that less people will have voted in the mid terms that brought some of those representatives to power. AND the fact that each state would only get one vote, so people in a district that is represented by someone in the minority for that state will feel even more alienated.

Which is why I said:

The backlash over throwing out the entire nation's votes and handing the choice to the fucking HOUSE would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than deciding results of a state by a group nine people who can be grudgingly respected even if you disagree with them.

Am I saying reform is likely under such an event? No. The nation is pretty apathetic to changing the electoral system. But I think it would be better than nill, which is the amount of reform I would expect to see in the next decade without the House deciding an election.

Are you more optimistic?