news-record.com

Tip O'Neill used to say, "All politics is local," but that's wrong when it comes to the Electoral College. There, all politics is national.

North Carolina Democratic legislators just learned that lesson.

They were all set to give final approval to a bill that would apportion most of North Carolina's electoral votes by congressional districts when they abruptly withdrew the measure. The apparent reason: Their political strategy here contradicted the Democratic Party position in California.

It's all about winning presidential elections, which requires assembling 270 electoral votes across the country.

The Republican candidate has carried North Carolina, which awards 15 electoral votes, every time since 1980. Democrats figured they could even the playing field by dividing electoral votes: two to the statewide popular vote leader, then 13 others according to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A bill to make that change was approved in the N.C. Senate and passed on first and second readings in the House, with only the final reading to go in the days before the legislature adjourned for the year.

Then national Democratic leaders intervened, according to Tar Heel Dems Web site. The bill created a problem in California, where Democrats oppose an effort by Republicans to put a proposal on a statewide ballot that would change electoral voting in the same way that was advanced in North Carolina.

But in California, the winner-take-all formula works in favor of Democrats. And, because California holds 55 electoral votes, the stakes are very high. A Republican presidential candidate couldn't carry the whole state, but he could lead in 20 congressional districts. Instead of a margin of 55 electoral votes, Democrats might gain only 15, 35-20 over Republicans.

"If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008," national Democratic consultant Chris Lehane told The Associated Press. He called the scheme "an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election."

Democrats could hardly practice in North Carolina what they're condemning as election-fixing in California. And, it should be noted, the same contradiction applies to Republicans in California and North Carolina.

If this episode makes a point, it's that electoral votes should be apportioned in the same manner everywhere. Different rules in different states, depending on who wields political power, isn't the way to achieve a fair outcome in presidential elections. If the Electoral College system should be changed, Congress should address that need through the constitutional amendment process. Presidential politics is national, not local.