Ready or not, here comes the election. As both parties gear up for that final push and get out the vote effort during the next four days, tensions are high as to the potential outcomes of this election.

Though I’m a political science major and generally love elections and the game of political campaigning, I really am ready for the whole thing to be over with. However, the thing that worries me the most is that this election may not be decided Tuesday night, much like four years ago.

With the polls across the country indicating a neck-and-neck race for the White House, the danger is that the election could draw out over a period of months. Only this time it could be in several states rather than just one. With more than 10,000 lawyers on both the Republican and Democrat sides ready to fight the results in the courts, it raises questions about the integrity of our election system. Aren’t the voters supposed to determine who our next president is? The consequences of the 2000 election times three are difficult to contemplate. In many of the other democracies around the world, contested elections are not as complicated and crippling as in the United States because they have a system for runoff elections or simply conduct a new vote.

It is disappointing that our current political culture would rather see the lawyers hash out the results in the courts, leaving the decision to nine Supreme Court justices rather than the American people.

The ultimate question is this — after 2000, we knew and understood that there needed to be reforms in our electoral system, so why is it that after four years we may find ourselves in a situation worse than the one encountered in 2000? Hopefully, John Kerry will win in a landslide victory and all the pre-election worries about a long, drawn-out legal battle will not come to fruition.

Whether the election is close or not, it seems clear to me that the country needs a more uniform system of elections. Some may say it isn’t the business of the federal government to tell states how to run their election systems. This may be true for state and local elections, but when the stakes are the highest office of the land, it’s important to get the votes right.

For those who may believe that the 2000 election doesn’t warrant a national standard for ballots, registration and counting, all I can say is that you must have some stake in seeing fewer people vote in this country. The fact is that Democrats tend to win in higher turnout elections, which would make it difficult for the Republicans to maintain power.

This is not an accusation that Republicans actively try to suppress the vote, but when the Ohio Secretary of State — a Republican — wants to throw out voter registrations because they were not printed on thick enough paper, I will say that the Republican Party doesn’t exactly encourage you to vote. If your registration is thrown out once, you will probably be discouraged from registering again, especially if you’re a new voter.

Ultimately, the accusations about voter fraud abound on each side of the fence because the Democrats aren’t exactly squeaky clean on this one either. I highly doubt that wholesome figures like Mary Poppins or Dick Tracy will show up at the polls.

If a person is dead, they may be registered to vote, but it is unlikely they will show up at their voting precinct to cast a ballot. This raises the important question of who the zombified would vote for as a group. Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, a Green or an independent, your vote should count. A universal voter system for federal elections is the only way to make it more efficient and stable, so the American people never again have to cede their judgment to activist judges.