Northwestern University Law Professor John McGinnis expresses views very similar to mine:
I am no fan of subjecting judges to elections. In my view, the far superior system is one, like the federal structure, in which the elected chief executive of the jurisdiction appoints judges for a term of years upon confirmation of a legislative body. But judicial elections are necessary, if the appointments are made according to so-called Missouri plans, an arrangement that permits lawyers to create a power center of their own in the judiciary. Indeed, while elections provide some corrective to the democratic deficit of those plans, they are an insufficient corrective, because voters do not generally focus on judicial elections. The better solution would be trade the end of the judicial elections for the termination of Missouri plans.