They came up with plans to prevent suicide and tackle climate change. Then on Day 4 of the reality TV challenge came a final twist: they had to vote for who they thought would best address these crises. As we saw with the public vote on a final leader the last week of the competition, there’s a lot to be said about having a live and informed voter.
In the final leaders’ debate, all eyes were on the two women – who came under fire for the first time this season – for the chance to be the final candidates to address the issues of our time, climate change and human-made global warming.
And by week-four, it seems as if all hell really broke loose.
It was on the campaign trail on Election Day, which led to the “debate” about climate change, that the final contenders fell out.
To put the situation in context, this was a debate not just between two politicians but two sides of the same coin.
The first woman, the “climate change advocate”, is a politician who has no scientific credentials, speaks on behalf of no one, yet claims the power to command a room with her voice – all while insisting she has the knowledge of the facts to offer an honest and reasoned explanation of climate change.
The second woman, who had the best political game plan of the final candidates, was a politician who not only has scientific credentials but also has a track record of being able to put her arguments to the test.
As the final contenders stumbled and stumbled and stumbled over their debate performance, the two candidates who had been the best so far left no doubt who they were who would be the leaders of our movement.
And, in a remarkable twist in week four, we learned who would be the winner. The only woman left standing and the leader of our movement.
Let’s pause then to appreciate that the first woman is no ordinary politician and the second woman is no ordinary scientist. On the campaign trail, she was no ordinary voter.
The fact is that women have been the under