I'm usually an optimist. But my glass is less than half full this morning. After the November election I was optimistic that the citizens of Kansas City were tired of the status quo and were going to vote to change it. Get fresh blood into office. Make a change.
Yesterday, the voters didn't step up to the plate...and many of our "status quo" candidates advanced to the next round.
I can't begin to understand why some people vote the way they do. How several thousand people can vote for a candidate who's #1 qualification is "I'm an architect" and has yet to bring forth a single idea of what he'd do to improved the city, over two candidates who work their butts off in their communities, have stances on energy savings, improving the cities, neighborhood programs, etc, is beyond me.
And yet they did. And not just in one district.
This has opened up a new research opportunity for me...I'm going to figure out how people choose who to vote for. I did research on a lot of candidates. I chose who to support carefully. Today, almost everyone I voted for sits at home pondering their next steps after not advancing to the general election. Certainly a few of my candidates made it through...but fewer than I would have thought. Am I wrong on what it takes to improve KC? Or are all the other people making decisions differently.
I'm going to try and find out.