tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post567155446001765903..comments2011-10-31T00:24:17.146ZAMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-3080866884416318162011-10-31T00:24:17.146Z2011-10-31T00:24:17.146ZBlogger AM said...<br /><br /> Alfie,<br /><br /> I agree with this assessment. Neither of the two were up to much. But the fact that women, not these two, are not represented is something of concern. Were either of the two who did run worse than McGuinness, Gallagher or Mitchell? Their disparity within a bad lot is a caue of concern.AMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-5238907767785115382011-10-31T00:11:17.501Z2011-10-31T00:11:17.501ZAnthony,<br /><br /><i>&quot;One serious issue for society to reflect upon is that the two women candidates polled lower than their male rivals, placing both in the bottom two. After 21 years of a female presidency it is as if the men have returned with a vengeance taking 94 per cent of the vote between them. Not a propitious outcome.&quot;</i><br /><br />I could not disagree more. It just so happened that the calibre of the two female candidates in this election was very poor: one was a quango queen who couldn&#39;t string two platitudes together, the other was a constitution-waving loon. Regardless of their gender, rejecting both Mary Davis and Dana was a perfectly reasonable decision by the electorate. I mean, would it be an issue if the two female candidates had polled higher than the five male candidates?Alfiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16403732604779381173noreply@blogger.com