Here we are, less than a week away from E-Day.

The masses are huddled, the old people ready to man the polling booths. Anxiety is high as America enters what may be the most critical moments of our democracy. The United States, 228 years in the making, once again puts itself to the test: can the Republic survive repetitively tumultuous elections?

Those in charge have seen this day coming far in advance and are preparing for the aftershocks of that star-crossed day. War is brewing, but these battles will not be waged upon bloodied green fields, the expanses of the sea or in devastated urban landscapes.

Political parties have been preparing for this encounter for quite some time, marshalling their resources together for what will likely prove a historic struggle. The clarion calls for either party’s army resonates with the epic times in which we live: we shall go on to the end, we shall fight in the courts, we shall fight in the swing states and media, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our party, we shall never surrender.

And who will these soldiers be? Our brave young men and women in arms? No!

Lawyers. Lots of them.

Four years ago, our nation began a cycle that may prove unending save for an unforeseen solution. The fears of what may happen are very real; it is likely that the race for the presidency will likely not end Nov. 2, and even more likely that millions of individuals on the losing side will enjoy four more years of hatred toward the once-loyal opposition. Why is this happening? What has become of the most successful democracy in the history of man? Is this the fate of our Republic?

When examining this issue, two rationales for the existence of such a problem leap out to the observer: mass polarization among much of the electorate combined with the natural results of our electoral system. The first seems the most obvious and readily pertinent to our lives as individuals, where as the second is more obtuse but likely far more influential in reality.

If George Bush had won decisively in 2000, the interpretation of his actions over the past four years would have been completely different. Those who felt slighted have never truly gotten over their anger toward what they believe to have been an unfair and unjust election, and it has tainted their view of this president throughout his term. Most political activists on the either side of the mainstream, left or right, view this election as do or die, apocalypse versus sanity. While this may not truly be the most polarized the electorate has ever been, it certainly feels that way.

Its been said many times that during this election, voters aren’t so much supporting their chosen candidate, but rather voting against the other. Our choices this time around are as poor as they have ever been. Bush has made too many mistakes. Kerry is hard to find credible. Nader is off his rocker. Cobb, the Green Party candidate, suffers from not being Nader. Badnarik and Peroutka, the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates respectively, are two names you’ve never heard before if you aren’t a political junkie.

Our electoral system is designed in such a way so as to naturally create a system that only supports two parties, and whoever the candidates are, that’s who we’re stuck with. Many will argue that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote to change that, but they are misguided. If you want more choices, the electoral system itself must be changed. A protest vote now will do absolutely nothing other than make you the target of ridicule.

In the past, this electoral system has proven viable, as it tends to provide the necessary filter intended by our founding fathers to stifle the disarray of pure democracy with the focus of a republic. It is not, however, without flaw, and this year’s election serves as evidence of that. Faced with poor choices from both major parties, it is hard not to feel as though the system itself has failed. I am loathe to believe that change is necessary at this point, for I believe the positives (namely the removal of extremists from the pool of choices) outweigh the negatives (poor choices), but the argument to do so can indeed be made.

Nevertheless, regardless of your opinion as to whether or not these aspects of our electoral system require change, when we look at these two realities combined, it becomes clear how the problem is created, and why we are facing an attack of the lawyers. It’s extremely hard to trust one another, especially when the alternative is so awful and we are so hateful toward one another.

What’s the solution? Bring in the lawyers to fight for us.

Democrats in Florida charging discrimination in the voting law have already filed nine suits. This is just the beginning. The viability of these suits aside, this is a bad trend for our democracy. Let us hope, for all of our sakes, that whoever wins this election, whenever it’s over, finds a way to mend the damage affecting the very core of our republic. Our society depends on it.

Zach Stern ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.