Many people are unhappy with the idea of elected judges, because it means that popuarity could best competence or ethics, but that sure gives a lot of credit to the politicians who would otherwise appoint them.
I think that you are missing the point of why judges shouldn't be elected. Say you're accused of a high profile murder. Do you want your case tried by a judge who is following her or his own conscience? Or one who is trying to convince voters that he or she is tough on crime?
Say you are going to court in a civil case. Do you want your case tried by a judge who is secure in office? Or someone who has accepted campaign contributions from your opponent in the past and could really use more for the current competitive election?
Even if politicians appoint worse judges than elections would provide, elections cause active pressure on judges to change behavior. This makes elected judges exceptionally bad during the election period or leads to good judges getting kicked out for not being responsive enough to voters.
It's also worth noting for the purpose of this thread that not all elections occur in even years. For example, the governors of Virginia and New Jersey were elected in 2009. Also, some governors serve two year terms (e.g. New Hampshire) or serve four year terms that roughly coincide with the presidential terms.
It's not uncommon for odd year elections to be used for local elections (mayor, township commissioner, etc.) but that too is not set federally.