It was one that an old-style Soviet apparatchik could appreciate: an election with one-party rule, little competition and sometimes -- best of all -- no election whatsoever.

North Carolina is a deeply competitive state, divided between Democrats and Republicans. But Congress and the General Assembly have become competition-free zones.

This is not an accident. Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on much, but they can agree on one thing: the importance of self-preservation.

Both parties have drawn lines for North Carolina's 13 congressional seats and for the 170 members of the General Assembly in a way to protect incumbents and thwart competition.

That means most lawmakers don't have to defend their record, don't have to discuss the issues facing the country or the state, and in many instances don't even have to campaign.

If politics were a business, the antitrust division of the U.S. Justice Department would be investigating. Call it vote-fixing -- elected officials choose their constituents instead of the other way around.

Consider Congress. There was not one close election for North Carolina's 13 U.S. House seats.

The closest House race was out west in the 11th District, where Republican Rep. Charles Taylor won with 55 percent of the vote. On average in North Carolina congressional races, the winner beat the opponent 64 percent to 36 percent.

In the eastern part of the state, Republican Walter Jones won with 73 percent, Democrats G.K. Butterfield and David Price won with 64 percent, Democrat Bob Etheridge with 62 percent and Democrat Brad Miller with 59 percent.

Members of Congress already have a huge advantage over their challengers: campaign contributions, name recognition and the perks of office. Now they have districts designed to make them impervious to voters.

It was even worse in the General Assembly. Both parties were able to put a name on the ballot in most congressional races; not so for many legislative races.

All 120 state House seats were up before the voters in November. In 72 House districts, only one major party fielded a candidate. The other party thought the deck was so stacked that it didn't bother to even try.

And where there was competition, races were rarely close. In only five of the 120 state House races did the victor win with 52 percent or less of the vote.

All 50 state Senate seats were also before the voters. In 18 of those races, only one major party offered a candidate. Only five state Senate races were close, with the victor winning by 52 percent or less.

This is a barely functioning democracy.

Lawmakers have long drawn favorable districts for themselves. But technology has turned redistricting from an art to a political science.

The obvious solution is to create a bipartisan commission to draw lines for Congress and the legislature. But don't expect lawmakers to give up power to draw their own districts.

In 2006, all of the congressional and legislative seats will again go before voters. But we already know most of the results, just as in the old Soviet Union.