Do elections matter? The short answer is an emphatic “Yes,” even though it’s easy to be cynical and disillusioned.

In 1974, state senate president Robert Bennett, a moderate Republican, came from far behind to edge attorney general Vern Miller, a relatively conservative Democrat.

The differences were clear between Bennett, the bearded Johnson County policy wonk and Miller, the flamboyant Wichita lawman.

Bennett was known for meticulously examining the state budget, line by line. Miller’s notoriety stemmed from his hands-on style, popping out of car trunks during drug busts.

Miller’s substantial lead eroded, partly because of his continued presence in drug raids, an unseemly activity for a prospective governor. Bennett, a famously reluctant campaigner, did enough to win by 3000 votes in a photo finish. Over the next four years he completed the extensive reforms of Kansas government he had begun as a state senator.

Those modernizing reforms set Kansas on a course of almost forty years of successful moderate-conservative government, which came to a crashing end with the 2010 electoral successes of Sam Brownback and a wave of far-right state house members.

Bob Bennett’s election was crucial in developing a balanced tax system and a responsive state government. To be sure, Kansas politicians have fought over many issues, from abortion to KPERS funding to school finance, but the pivotal 1974 election set the overall direction of policy-making.

In 2014, Kansas voters are faced with an even more important choice than in 1974, when moderate legislators would have eventually worked with Miller to produce essential reforms.

Simply put, the future of Kansas is at stake in this year’s gubernatorial contest. Both Sam Brownback and his Democratic opponent, Paul Davis would probably agree with that statement, as would their supporters and most close political observers around the state.

The race’s outlines are familiar. Brownback and the Legislature engaged in a self-proclaimed experiment by enacting major income tax cuts, which reduced taxes substantially for the wealthiest Kansans and eliminated them for an entire class of businesses (more than 191,000). In addition, the governor rejected hundreds of millions in federal money that would have helped Kansans gain access to health care. Per pupil state aid to education has fallen, and teachers have lost the right of due process in fighting dismissals.

There is more, to be sure, but the crucial elements here are the sharp tax cuts, unevenly spread between rich and poor, the resulting steep reductions in revenues, the ensuing bond-rating downgrades, and the prospect of even further large cuts to education spending, from kindergarten through graduate school.

In a nutshell, this election is a referendum on that record and whether a far-right administration will continue these policies.

In assessing the future under a Brownback regime, former state legislator and budget director Duane Goossen concludes that the state has “no plan that even pretends to show how the experiment might succeed. No spreadsheet that outlines details. No timeline. No metrics for what would constitute success or failure.” Rather, as I’ve previously argued, we have a faith-based budget – faith in policies that have failed elsewhere and that other states view with alarm.

Over the course of the campaign, Paul Davis has demonstrated continued competence, in building a campaign organization, raising funds, and providing consistent evidence in debates that he is fully capable of governing.

Given that, the choice in just over two weeks is whether Kansas voters want more of a failed, experimental, unsound set of policies or whether they want to return to the balanced approach that Robert Bennett and a bipartisan group of talented legislators produced, forty years ago.

Burdett Loomis is a professor of political science at the University of Kansas.