In an act of desperation, Mayor Bloomberg’s Charter Revision Commission yesterday sent news organizations a dispatch that opened with the following: “Voters in nine City Council Districts representing 1.4 million residents will be offered a ballot but not a choice in the general election.” The missive went on to say, “Five City Council incumbents who defeated primary election challengers will face no general election opposition… while four other incumbents who faced no primary election competition will also be running without an opponent in the general election.”There’s a problem with misleading tidbits of information such as this one — they tend to have a flip side. For instance, if nine out of 49 incumbent members of the City Council face no opposition this November 4, that means the rest, 40, do face opposition.

Let’s leave aside for the moment, however, this reality, embarrassing to the Charter Revision Commission as it is. And let’s also leave aside the way that the publicly funded commission has chosen to shed all pretense of objectivity and simply act as a campaign organization pushing for passage of the non-partisan election ballot question. The more puzzling question is why exactly the commission sees the mere existence of politically strong, unopposed incumbents to signal a lack of voter choice. People have been choosing to elect and re-elect City Council incumbents like Albert Vann of Brooklyn and Melinda Katz of Queens to different state and city positions for years — and in Mr. Vann’s case, decades. In both cases, when these seemingly invincible incumbents sought higher office — Mr. Vann, the presidency of Brooklyn, and Ms. Katz, a seat in the Congress — they lost in expensive, hotly contested primaries.

Unlike the seemingly omniscient charter commission, we would be loathe to conclude that these politicians, having won tens of thousands of votes legally cast over the years, should face another round of balloting simply to satisfy the commission’s desire to see more political conflict. But if it’s more competitive elections the city needs, the best solution isn’t to eliminate or weaken political parties, but rather to encourage more people to run against incumbents. Those who don’t want to become Democrats can run for office on a non-Democratic party line, such as those offered by the Conservative, Independence, and Republican parties. The last of these parties, after all, must be doing something right: It controls the upper house of the Legislature at Albany, the presidency of America, both houses of the national legislature, and, ostensibly at least, the mayoralty of America’s largest city.

Existing electoral reforms in New York City, such as term limits on city offices and an overly generous matching funds program, already create considerable incentives for newcomers to throw their hats into the ring. The commission would have us believe that these measures aren’t sufficient, and that another carrot, the elimination of primary elections, would somehow produce a new crop of talent ed candidates from which to choose. We prefer to think that the public deserves, will vote for, and ends up best served by individuals with the grit and gumption to seek public office even against long odds. Two such candidates, Republicans fighting to overcome Democratic incumbents, are Lisa Giovinazzo and Jennifer Arangio. Ms. Giovinazzo, in Staten Island’s District 49,will try to overcome Democrat Michael McMahon. Ms. Arangio, in Manhattan’s District 5, will face off against the speaker of the City Council, Gifford Miller. Oddly, our mayor, who cares so much about creating a competitive political culture, has so far supported the incumbents in these races, despite his sharing a party with the challengers. In a climate so hostile to Republicans that a Republican mayor isn’t backing up Republican City Council candidates, it’s a wonder we have one, let alone 40, contested races with incumbents this fall.