Something feels amiss with how Maine chooses its attorney general, but it’s hard to put a finger on what.

The process is sound, the candidates are usually well-qualified and the group of electors – the Legislature – ordinarily possess good judgment. (That’s why they were elected in the first place.)

Yet something still just feels wrong. Like the best person for the job is not available, and what is available are a bunch of political insiders vying for promotion and power in a legislative popularity contest.

Maine lawmakers also select the state treasurer, auditor and secretary of state by the same process.

Legislators will make their choice among former Democratic lawmakers John Brautigam of Falmouth and Sean Faircloth of Bangor, and current Democratic lawmaker Janet Mills on Dec. 3.

Is this system flawed? It would seem the true measure of the AG selection is not its merits, but the merits of the alternatives. Others – like popular election or gubernatorial appointment – each have significant drawbacks.

Of all options, popular election is the least attractive. Concerns about the political nature of the position would be amplified if it were earned following a full-fledged campaign, replete with signs, commercials and negative mailers.

This system provides no guarantees of getting the best attorney general possible, either, the strongest criticism of the current process. Being a good politician is qualification of nothing except being a good politician.

Of course, this is the system used in most states, so it’s the most proven, at least.

Then there’s the gubernatorial appointment, which is less used nationally, but some would say more traditional. It’s long been the prerogative of chief executives to name their cronies – or perhaps rivals – to political positions.

Except this system puts a state’s top lawyer under the political thumb of their patron. Whether this allows proper checks and balances to exist in government, especially in the case of malfeasance, is open to serious questions.

These relationships are often more exploitable than responsible.

So where does this leave us? Inconclusive. Though the AG selection process leaves something to be desired, identifying that “something” is difficult.

While perception of political patronage is palpable, the system has not had any pressing problems exposed. And lawmakers have yet to see fit to change it.

What’s needed is a capable, ethical and honorable lawyer to occupy the state’s uppermost legal post.

How they’re chosen should be immaterial, as long as the choice is wise.

And if not, there’s at least other processes available to remedy the mistake.