The situation is a little different in rural areas, where people often personally know the candidates. But in a city like Wichita, the vast majority of people voting will not only never have met any of the candidates, they will know nothing about them. And it is not as though a diligent voter can study up on a candidate's positions on the issues. Judicial candidates are prohibited by judicial ethics from discussing substantive legal issues in their campaigns. So what actually happens most of the time, of course, is the candidate with the most name recognition wins, which is usually the candidate who spends the most money on advertising during the campaign.
Elections are, therefore, a fairly competence-neutral method for selecting judges.
It should not surprise anyone that such a system produces wildly inconsistent results. This having been said, in truth, judicial elections did not become a big deal in Wichita until very recently. In the past, it was fairly uncommon for incumbent judges to be challenged, and because sitting judges usually retired in the middle of their terms, most new judges were actually appointed by the governor. I can remember how I used to shake my head at other states, notably Texas, where judicial elections had become high-dollar donnybrooks. I have things closer to home to shake my head at today.