If you went to the polls in Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary elections and cast votes for appellate court judges — congratulations. You’re part of a small minority of voters who will have a say in the people who make up the state Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth courts.

One question: Did you have any idea who those people are?

There was only one Lehigh Valley judge listed among 18 hopefuls for appellate court seats — Northampton County Judge Emil Giordano, who is running for state Superior Court.

Otherwise, voters were asked to choose among people recognizable only by name, party and county of residence.

This is no way to select people who play a critical role in interpreting the law. The lack of voter participation, the lack of voter knowledge about candidates, and the impact of campaign cash on judicial elections is an institutional scandal — a failure of the democratic system that no one wants to talk about.

Pennsylvania is one of six states that elects all its judges. Federal courts and most states, including New Jersey, use an appointment process, which is far from perfect. But under a merit selection system, the intent is to identify qualified judge candidates — vetting them through a panel of citizens, former judges and others — and preparing a list from which the governor may appoint, subject to approval by the state Senate.

Advocates for change, including Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, have been pushing for a merit selection system for years, at least for the top three tiers of state courts. We agree with that limited approach. While county and magisterial judge races aren’t immune from the influence of campaign money, local elections allow voters a much greater opportunity to get to know the records and reputations of the candidates.

It’s clear the Legislature isn’t going to be embarrassed into supporting a move to merit selection, which requires a constitutional amendment. If the conviction of Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin for campaign abuses, the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffrey over an email porn scandal, and the infamous “Kids for Cash” scandal in Luzerne County aren’t enough, corruption alone isn’t going to drive reform.

Yet the real scandal here isn’t the few rogues who give people in robes bad names. What’s wrong is that judicial candidates have to put on apolitical fronts to get elected, and use surrogate shills to raise cash through political channels. Money accepted from lawyers and special interests acting on behalf of clients taints the electoral process.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizen United ruling is opening state judge races to deep-pocketed donors. The result is that tens of millions of dollars will be spent on dubious advertising campaigns that cannot reveal much about the candidates or their opponents, in an attempt to reel in majorities of the 10 to 15 percent of registered voters who ultimately decide these races, with precious little information to go on.

The Pennsylvania way.

Until legislators get behind merit selection — a constitutional change that should be placed alongside downsizing the Legislature, fairer redistricting and other reforms — this is how we will choose judges.