Non-partisan elections are a key part of the Reform Package, that assemblage of ideas endorsed by Progressives and their allies for the purpose of taking politics out of government. Of course, you can no more take politics out of government than kisses out of romance or theology out of religion.

Government is an argument about who should govern and to what ends. People disagree about these matters and their disagreement must be organized if it is to be effective. The founders of this country, though instinctively opposed to political parties, quickly recognized that voters cannot be expected to somehow "find" the best candidate and put that person into office. (They could, of course, do that for our first president, George Washington, but after him, who?) The Democratic and Federalist parties were organized to help do that task. Naturally, other organizations besides parties could do the job of recruiting candidates, registering voters, and conducting campaigns. Assorted citizens groups have done this in many towns and cities, but the more effective they are at their task the more they become indistinguishable from parties. Parties need not be Democratic or a Republican; they just as easily can be the Good Government Council or the Citizens for a Better New York, if these civic groups sustain themselves and are held accountable by the voters.

Non-partisanship is common in American cities, especially wherever the Progressive movement was the strongest, such as the Far West and the plains and mountain states. It is rather rare in the older cities of the Middle Atlantic region, precisely because these cities, being older, acquired the conventional party forms that so far they have been reluctant to shed.

Cities with non-partisan governments tend to favor certain kinds of candidates. Over the last half century, these people have tended to be business or professional people who are, in state or national elections, Republicans. There are many exceptions (non-partisanship in a heavily Republican town might help a few Democrats get elected), but in big cities with heavily Democratic populations, it is Republican business people who gain. Richard Riordan, a Republican, probably would have had a harder time being elected mayor of Los Angeles if he had to run as a Republican rather than as a non-partisan candidate.

The reason is obvious: Without a party name attached to the candidate, people who would ordinarily vote against him are left without a simple guide to help them. Moreover, business and professional people can acquire status outside politics by becoming notable or spending their own money--as Mayor Bloomberg did.

What is puzzling is why ethnic minorities and labor leaders would ever be expected to favor non-partisanship. Since so many of their leaders live outside the realm of conventional civic life, they turn to party politics to find ways to work their way up the political ladder and to mobilize supporters. No parties in general means fewer people from these ranks will hold office.

But the group that probably gains the most from non-partisanship is the press. If party labels cannot exist and if most voters have no idea who the "best candidate" is, they will turn to the press for advice. Forty years ago, when Edward C. Banfield and I wrote City Politics, we asked a newspaperman about non-partisanship. His answer went straight to the point: "You can't tell the players without a scorecard, and we sell the scorecards."

To the extent the press supports non-partisanship, they probably do it for the same reason they like campaign finance reform: Both measures reduce the effect of non-media organizations on political outcomes. The press, after all, is protected by the First Amendment, and rightly so. If neither party organizations nor campaign money can help candidates, the influence of press organizations over candidate behavior and election outcomes will tend to grow.

Political parties have a role in government that is different from all other organizations that try to influence it. Where parties are strong, they have a stake in keeping their elected officials in line with the party's goal, which is, of course, to win future elections. This gives to the voter an important tool. When they don't like what the government is doing, they can vote for the rival party, not simply for mayor but also for city council members.

Try to imagine what voters will do if they do not like a government run by non-partisan leaders. They can, of course, refuse to re-elect a leader, but that only hurts that candidate. It does not hurt any group that has a stake in governance, because there is no such group. Voters may well wind up casting ballots for candidates who are cut from the same cloth as the one they have turned out of office.

Obviously the organizational influence of parties has declined in recent decades. The direct primary means that it is harder for parties to select their nominees and the rise of television has reduced the parties' ability to influence who wins. The difficulty with this decline is that no one has discovered what group can do for governance what parties once did.

In fact, there is no alternative organizational force that can help direct and hold accountable government leaders. The alternative to parties are newspaper editorials and television slogans, and important as these forces are, they are no substitute for parties.

James Q. Wilson is chairman of AEI's Council of Academic Advisers.