Election Results

I'm sure you've probably heard by now, but here are the results from yesterday's local elections:

1. Scott Hopson was elected mayor, defeating the incumbent candidate Tom Pyle.

2. Bill Whitten was elected to a second term as a city council member. The other seat was won by Tim Reazin.

3. Michael Kelso, Eric Votaw, and Keith Nowland won the three open seats on the USD 491 board of education.

I voted...and managed to screw it up

The instructions are pretty simple. Get a ballot, fill in the little circles next to the candidate(s) that you're voting for, then turn in your completed ballot.

I did that. I voted for one mayor. I voted for three school board members. I voted for three city council members. I filled in my circles and was very careful to color inside the lines. I checked and double checked that I had voted for the "right" people. I took my ballot up to the little machine. I made sure I properly inserted my ballot into the little machine. And that's when the machine--that little miracle of technology, that thing which reads my ballot and instantly makes sure my vote is counted, that modern day descendant of the old-school cardboard ballot box--told me that my ballot was "invalid". Invalid? That couldn't be...I had been so careful.

The now-not-so-smart machine asked me if I wanted my ballot back. Of course I did. That's MY ballot. That's MY chance to have a say in the local government. Give it back to me you stupid little machine. So I push the button and my ballot comes sliding back out to me. I double check circles, I recount my votes, I re-read the instructions...oh. Oops. Apparently, you're only allowed to vote for two city council candidates, not three. (If you refer to my post from yesterday, you'll see just how mixed up I was...)

Now, there's a part of me that thinks democracy would be a lot more fun if you could vote for as many (or as few) people as you want. If too many candidates get more than 50% of the vote, then they have to thumb-wrestle for it or something. Or maybe a "Billy Madison" style talent show. If too few get more than 50%, then you draw a random citizen's name out of a hat to fill any empty spots. But that's not how it works,so I had to take my ballot up to the nice little ladies working the front table, and politely explain to them why I'm too much of an idiot to follow simple directions. All this time, I'm having visions of hanging chads and disputed ballots...

In the end, I got it right. My original ballot was voided, I got a fresh new one, I filled in the correct number of circles (coloring inside the lines, of course), the lovely ladies working the table were more than patient and accommodating, and I cast my ballot for one mayor, two city council members, and three school board members.

This time, the little electronic "I'm-smarter-then-you-sucker" ballot box accepted my ballot and counted it. And with that, I took part in one of our greatest civic processes...and the great American democracy proved itself to be greater than my ineptitude.

Good news for Kansas BOE (Part II)

Okay, so with the history of flip-flopping that has taken place on the Kansas Board of Education during the past decade, you would expect to see conservatives cut into the 6-4 majority that the moderate/liberal coalition currently holds.

Well in the words of Lee Corso, "Not so fast." Of the 10 seats on the board, 5 were up for grabs. These seats were held by 2 conservatives and 3 moderate/liberals. Only one of the five incumbents chose to run for re-election. (I can't understand why...it seems like such a rewarding position...)

In districts 2 and 10, pro evolution (moderate) republican candidates won their primaries, resulting in two pro-evolution candidates running in the general election for each seat. Knowing that, the worst that could happen would be a 5-5 split when the election was over. Sue Storm (D) won the district 2 seat, and David Dennis (R) won the district 10 seat.

In district 4, Carolyn Campbell (a pro-evolution democrat) defeated Robert Meissner. Meissner claimed to support the current standards until "scientific consensus" indicated that other theories of origins should be taught. He reiterated this point to me persanally when I had the chance to ask him. I have no doubt that he would have been evolution-friendly. But he was endorsed by the ultra-conservative Kansas Republican Assembly (KRA). Sorry, Mr. Meissner. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

In district 8, Walt Chappell (pro-evolution democrat) defeated Dennis Hedke (creationist republican).

The only incumbent to run for re-election was also the only conservative to win. Kathy Martin (who was famously quoted, in front of international media, as admitting that she hadn't actually read the science standards that they were supposed to be voting on) won another four year term. Her opponent, Christopher Renner, ran a good campaign and had a chance at one point to win. Unfortunately his homosexuality became an issue late in the race when one of Martin's supporters sent a letter to several newspapers in the district. As embarassing as it is for me to admit, that's the kind of thing that wins elections in the heartland of America.

In the intrest of full disclosure, Kathy Martin is one of my least favorite people in the world. She is ignorant, incompetent, and has made a mockery of the Catholic faith that I share with her.

At the end of the day, though, the pro-evolution moderate/liberal coalition added another seat to their majority. Final score: 7-3 in favor of the good guys. Not bad for a red state.

Good news for Kansas BOE (Part I)

Lost in the excitement of Tuesday's Presidential election was some good news for the Kansas Board of Education. For those of you unfamiliar with the history of this board, we are currently operating under our 5th set of science standards since 1999. If you do the math, you'll see that we have been changing our standards, on average, every other year. And it's not coincidental that we have state school board elections every other year as well. The critical issue in each of these elections is how we treat biological evolution.

In 1999, a conservative majority on the board voted to adopt standards that de-emphasized (that's a euphamism for ignored) the theory of evolution. Of course, our great state quickly became the laughing stock of the educated world, and in 2001 an newly elected moderate/liberal majority undid the damage by adopting a fresh set of standards that once again included biological evolution.

But His truth was marching on, and after two more elections the board once again had a conservative majority and once again (in 2005) changed the standards. This time, instead of completely ignoring evolution, the board included language to call the validity, or "truth" of the theory into question. It was during this time that the board held their infamous "Kangaroo Court" and invited "experts" in (at taxpayers' expense) to testify for and against the theory. When pro-evolution scientists (rightfully) refused to testify, the whole ordeal became and exercise in silliness, highlighted at one point by a conservative board member admitting that she hadn't even fully read the standards that were being quesitoned. In a later post, I would like to introduce you to the three uber-conservatives who chaired these "hearings"...but for now I need to return to my main focus.

Two years ago, the flip-floppiness continued when the moderate/liberal coalition regained their power on the board and approved new standards that fall in line with mainstream science. So that's where we are now...after all the Kansas jokes are told, and everyone has a good laugh, we've got a very robust and respectable set of science standards in place for our state.

Quote of the Day

From the "Voices" call-in opinion line at the Kansas City Star:

"The Democratic presidential win is a victory for the media and proof positive that a free press can control the thinking of America."

Umm...really? You really want to go there? I can understand that it's tough to swallow when your candidate doesn't win. But you REALLY want to blame it on the First Amendment?