ONE way to get partisan politics out of public office is to force more candidates to run without party label.

The idea of nonpartisan elections makes more and more sense, especially in the public-works areas of government — those places where management of the office is more important than setting policy. There's not much ideology that can or should be attached to, say, the state treasurer, so why only elect Democrats or Republicans? That was state Treasurer Mike Murphy's idea — he offered to allow the Legislature to make the office nonpartisan, like electing an accountant or the state's best money manager regardless of party. Murphy, a proud Democrat, understands that he can be an effective steward of the state's purse without having to show his party card. The Legislature turned him down.

There was also a bill in Olympia to make county sheriff a nonpartisan office everywhere — as it is already in King County. The Legislature turned the idea down.

We are a state without much uniformity on party offices. In King County, the sheriff is an elected office, but nonpartisan. In all other counties but King, the head of elections is itself an elected office and candidates run under party label. For most mayors and members of city councils, the office is nonpartisan, although it's pretty easy to detect party affiliation by their votes.

Inside this mishmash of partisan or nonpartisan offices, one thing stands out: Party labels mean less in swing districts where no single party rules, and they mean a lot in one-party areas where all it takes to win is to carry the party nomination. Being a party's candidate says something about getting elected, but not much about how you do in office. That's why most voters also consider who the candidate is aside from party.

Furthering the confusion, all elected judges run as nonpartisan candidates. We would not want to elect judges, who make the most serious decisions, according to party. So why should we elect people to run the buses and the sewer plants based on being a Republican or a Democrat?

That's the case to make King County Council member a nonpartisan elected office.

Voters reduced the size of the council from 13 to nine, and the battle lines were quickly drawn across the landscape of King County to satisfy the parties. The redistricting lines affirmed the current Democrat majority on council, but the unanswered question was: Why should party affiliation matter?

Making County Council nonpartisan is an idea that has been tested before and regularly fails to be taken seriously. First, because the Democrats and Republicans cling to the power that flows from partisan elected office, and second because the council is seen as a potential ladder to higher public office, where being a lifelong Republican or Democrat really matters.

It's screwy. The housekeeping chores of county government cry out for managers over politicians. It's as if we elected a head of the ferry system and held a party nominating convention.

We need modern, adept county government around here, untethered to the policies that naturally come from party ideology. Since parties create ideology and insist on hearing it from their chosen elected officials, King County is forever mired in partisan debates.

Elected officials are proud, from time to time, to announce they are working either "across party lines," or "in bipartisan cooperation" to get something done.

But that assumes there should be an ideology to where the traffic signs go. If you think of an issue that ended in partisanship, then you also think of an issue where county government has failed.

It's time for politicians to liberate themselves of party label, run as accountants, teachers, lawyers or midwives and give us the government we deserve.

James F. Vesely's column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: jvesely@seattletimes.com (Look for more of his thoughts on the STOP blog, our editorial online journal at www.seattletimes.com/stop.)