Cliodhna Ní Ghuidhirof Colá iste Íosagáin, in Co Dublin, wonders why US voters won't elect a female or black president

People have long fought for equality for all people in all its forms, particularly when it concerns race or gender. You might expect equality to be particularly apparent in this time of social and technological advancement, yet there is a clear exception to this in a prominent field: the United States seems reluctant to elect a woman or a black person as president.

My point isn't about the presidential candidates but about why people take their gender or race into account when assessing whether they are suitable to lead the country.

The past has a huge role to play in this, of course, particularly regarding bitterness from the American Civil War (which is still overflowing into current mindsets) and the influence of conservative values.

Maybe we shouldn't forget that women and black people didn't get the vote and full human rights until after the social-revolutionary movements of the 1960s.

But here's where the present comes into the picture. All people in the US contribute equally to society - or at least that's what's expected. So, regardless of race and gender, all citizens of the US are entitled to the same education and rights.

If all people are expected to contribute in the same way to society, then why is this nation, at the forefront of global success, so cautious about electing a president who isn't a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (John F Kennedy being an exception)?

Many people believe that the southern states have a huge political and cultural influence over the rest of the US and that they would never elect a female or a black president.

The southern states - Texas in particular - certainly play a huge role in deciding the make-up of the American government. Yet the states with the largest number of votes in the electoral college - the indirect method that the US uses to elect its president - such as California and New York, tend to be liberal.

Unless democracy is a facade for an underhand dictatorship, this theory doesn't solve the problem.

The media, not necessarily a candidate's policies, has always been the main tool used to win the White House. Conservative media is prevalent in the US, and television networks such as Fox have a huge influence on the viewing public, as do a lot of extremely conservative political commentators, such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Parts of the US media have recently commented that America just isn't ready for a female, black or Latino president.

If that's true, why is the secretary of state both? If Condoleezza Rice was appointed to this position, isn't it plausible that the presidency is open to anyone?

Or is it that the analysis of conservative figures in the media is making people think that a person of different gender and ethnicity to previous presidents is not desired? Is it the media reflecting society or society reflecting the media?

If you wish to contribute to My TY, e-mail a 500-word article to gfaller@irish-times.ie. Don't forget to include your name, your school's name and a contact number