I think if you are running for a judge position and asking people for your votes then you should be held very much accountable for every case even more so than one who does not get voted in. They would be chosen by the people directly and should be more accountable to the people.
As it stands, there already are some judges that are elected, or at least voted for or against on local ballots for reinstatement or removal. These judges being aware of the fact that their rulings may be perceived negatively by the voter base could impact their judgments. On the one hand, this could prevent biased judges (who shouldn't be practicing law in the first place) from making biased rulings. On the other hand, it could prevent some judges who would normally rule on the side of the written law or greater moral good, from making a ruling that could be viewed as objectionable by the public, who are generally unaware of all of the facts and proceedings that are present and taking place during the course of a normal trial. For example, the George Zimmerman trial rocked the nation recently, with minority communities being most vocal about the allegation that the killing of Treyvon Martin was racially motivated. When the "not guilty" verdict was passed down, there was an uproar, and the presiding judge, were they elected rather than appointed, could have cause to worry about their career as a justice, despite the potential that, during the course of the trial, there was more than sufficient evidence to show that the killing was in self-defense, and the revelations that the victim was less than an upstanding citizen. However, in general, an election process rather than appointment process for the judicial branch would make judges more aware of the impact of their rulings on the opinions of voters, and could have an impact on those rulings.