The votes have been cast. And if Ken Livingstone has anything to do with it, they will be held under police guard. Certainly it is a measure of the bitterness and distrust generated by Labour's mayoral battle that Mr Livingstone should describe the three-day waiting period - to allow for complaints and appeals from candidates or members - as "an open invitation to fraud".
Glenda Jackson - formerly an impeccable Blairite minister, who might well end up running as Mr Livingstone's deputy - threatens court action at "any hint of impropriety". The Blairite candidate himself, Frank Dobson, feels obliged to acknowledge that the invitation to appeal ahead of the result is "unprecedented."
A happy ending is not in prospect when that result finally emerges this weekend. The obvious nightmare-scenario is that "Red Ken" takes the nomination, forcing Mr Blair to sue for peace and explain why a Livingstone mayoralty need not, after all, be a disaster for the capital.
However, a second nightmare-scenario is also in prospect. In this case, Mr Dobson emerges as victor from the electoral college but only narrowly - in precisely the same way Alun Michael defeated the popular choice, Rhodri Morgan, in Wales last year, courtesy of a carve-up of which Old Labour would have been proud.
The comparisons have already been drawn - the results spectacularly demonstrated this past week. Mr Michael never recovered from the perception that he had been parachuted-in to the Welsh leadership against the wishes of the people. His victory owed everything to trade union bloc votes. Damaged before he began, the result was a disaster in the Assembly elections, with Plaid Cymru coming from nowhere to form a credible opposition, and Labour obliged to form a minority administration.
The rest, as they say, is history. For all his life-long devotion to devolution, Mr Michael never won Welsh hearts. He was forced out last Thursday and, on Tuesday, Mr Morgan - the man Mr Blair determined not to have - was installed as First Secretary.
Mr Livingstone has said he will not run against any duly selected Labour candidate, and he would undoubtedly find difficulty escaping that assurance. Moreover - despite the press enthusiasm to see Mr Blair suffer another black eye, and polls consistently identifying Mr Livingstone as the only sure winner come May - Mr Dobson has every reason to think he might just scrape home.
Certainly, every trick in the book has been deployed to ensure he does. It is estimated he needs a staggering 63 per cent or more of the constituency ballot in order to balance Mr Dobson's certain victory in the MPs/MEPs and candidates' section of the electoral college.
No one doubts that Mr Dobson will win the latter handsomely. The MPs haven't enjoyed the luxury of a private ballot. The knowledge that their preference would be known to the leadership - and thus impact on their promotion or de-selection prospects - will have concentrated minds wonderfully.
But if, as expected, Mr Livingstone is the popular choice of the party members - and thus the clear winner in more-or-less every open ballot that has been held within the party or trade unions - the temptation to run as an Independent might prove irresistible.
Moreover, he can almost certainly assume that a discredited selection procedure, and revived charges of control freakery, will if anything enhance his opinion poll rating as the man to win.
Close observers of the Labour scene believe this is what will happen. Downing Street, too, is preparing for all eventualities.
Secret talks have reportedly been opened about the content of a Livingstone manifesto, should he claim the nomination. However, they likewise anticipate that Mr Livingstone might cut and run in the event of a narrow victory for Mr Dobson.
It is here that New Labour's desire to control might backfire spectacularly. The government is insistent it will not grant opposition parties the free mail shot customary in British elections. The Lords are threatening to veto the election rule book. There is speculation that the election itself might consequently be disrupted or even postponed.
Devolution was meant to be one of the defining characteristics of a radical, reforming administration. Instead it continues to look like a dog's breakfast - and one entirely of Downing Street's own concoction.