Which has the better track record -- partisan or nonpartisan elections?

I posed this question in this thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=334363 – and this one http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=314742 – but nobody bit. Thanks to the Progressive movement of the early 20th Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Progressive_Party#The_first_Progressive_Party), there are now nonpartisan elections in many American municipalities. The point was to break the power of the urban political machines, and, beyond that, the Progressives (although they formed a political party themselves) were ideologically hostile to partisanship as such – one of their slogans was, “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.”

We’ve now had eight decades to assess the value of nonpartisan elections. What kind of track record do they have, compared to partisan municipal elections? Do they produce more or less honest government? More or less efficient government? Is there any other basis on which either system has proven itself better than the other?

If Nebraska is any indication, non-partisan elections are a joke.

Local government and state legislature elections are officially non-partisan here, but generally there are no more than 2 candidates vying for a given seat at the primary level and only rarely are these two registered with the same party.

Party machines let us know, through seemingly endless advertising, which “non-partisan” is registered with which party.

Should two members of the same party end up on the general election ticket, the incumbent is backed over the challenger unless he or she has talked back to his or her “betters” on the Central Committee.

Should neither candidate be incumbent, the one the Central Committee recruited 2 years ago to run for this office will be made apparent–over and over again.
The challenger will be attacked as a “loose cannon” and “not a team player” for not waiting his/her turn.

The other party in such cases will either ignore this particular contest or join in the attacks on the upstart. On rare occasions the other party will embrace the upstart as a “person who places principle over party” if the upstart’s poll numbers are good.

Both parties worship at the altar of “discipline”.

Is there really no such thing as a “nonpartisan” election in the U.S., then? Or is it just Nebraska?

nonpartisan elections are all over. they were supposed to get rid of political machines, but advertising keeps the machine a-rolling, just like zenith said. i’m all for forming a third and maybe fourth party, but the two there would never allow it to happen. it would take some extraordinary circumstances to happen in a perfect sequence for that to happen. outside of the revolution or the masses becoming informed on issues and caring, we’re stuck with what we’ve got, which, i hear, isn’t so bad.
…is it?

The only good thing about np elections, from my point of view at least, is that it IS possible for moderates to win. With no primaries, people with centrist views can campaign to the middle.

It is refreshing when people can run on ideas and not party platforms. Sure the parties can muck it all up, but at least there is a greater chance than in a partisan campaign.

I wish we didn’t have primaries at all in this country. Heck, that is the one place where Louisiana is smarter than the rest of us. The have an open election and if no one gets 50%+1, there is a runoff between the top two.

What’s the difference?