How will you vote in the Age of the President referendum?

Riskymove · 01-05-2015 2:08pm

alroley wrote: »

I'm 23 and I think don't think myself(or the majority of my friends) have enough experience/are mature enough to be president.
But, it's not like changing the age guarantees a 21 year old to actually win, let alone be nominated. I guess giving everyone a fair chance is good.

It is funny how most people focus on the 21 bit

As a general question do people think a 33 yo can have the required experience?

38?

40?

50?

What is the cut off point

RobertKK · 01-05-2015 2:09pm

Both polls for the upcoming referendums have the wrong names.

One is the 'Marriage referendum'.
The other is 'age of presidential candidates referendum'.

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 2:09pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Because you will be discriminating against other people in society?

Who?

cruizer101 · 01-05-2015 2:09pm

Havn't read whole thread so may have been mentioned but so far with the legislation sitting at 35 the youngest president has been Mary Robinson at 46, Mary McAlesse was the same age also.

Patrick Hillary before that was 53 and all others have been over 60 so to be fair changing the limit to 21 is unlikely to result in us actually getting a president in their 20's or even 30's for that matter.

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 2:11pm

TheChizler wrote: »

My feeling is that overall it doesn't matter, I can't see someone being voted in under 35 anyway. But in principle I'm not fond of artificial barriers as it's the electorate who should decide the worthiness of the candidate. I think there's no point this being in the constitution in the first place so might as well get rid of it. The whole constitution needs a bit of a tidy up tbh.

You know you might have done it - this sounds like sense to me.

shroom007 · 01-05-2015 2:11pm

they may well all be 21-22 the only roll of any import the president has to perform is the review of new legistration and or referring it to the AG ,or somethin similar in terms of the constitution and if it is within the bounds of the constitution,I would prefer someone who has a memory of constitutional issues in the past and not some 21yr old who is aware of these thing just from the record. also as president he/she may have to meet some dubious leaders of countries despicable people how to play these kind of situations comes with experience

Riskymove · 01-05-2015 2:11pm

cruizer101 wrote: »

Havn't read whole thread so may have been mentioned but so far with the legislation sitting at 35 the youngest president has been Mary Robinson at 46, Mary McAlesse was the same age also.

I pointed out earlier that they were the youngest candidates let alone winner

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 2:11pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Who?

People younger than 35.

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 2:14pm

noway12345 wrote: »

People younger than 35.

Meh, that's not a kind of discrimination that bothers me. Would you, for example, advocate removing laws governing the sale of tobacco and alcohol to children based on the fact that you're discriminating against people younger than 18?

Captain Chaos · 01-05-2015 2:15pm

naughtb4 wrote: »

Discrimination based on age is still discrimination, let whoever run

Everyone on the planet is discriminated against in one way or another. It's a part of life.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 2:28pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Meh, that's not a kind of discrimination that bothers me. Would you, for example, advocate removing laws governing the sale of tobacco and alcohol to children based on the fact that you're discriminating against people younger than 18?

So some discrimination is ok then?

No valid reasons to oppose the referendum so you're bringing in some irrelevant nonsense. I think it comes down to you going ewwwwwww young people.

Henry94 · 01-05-2015 2:34pm

I'd favour raising the age to be honest. They get a pension for life and in theory someone could end up on the pigs back for life at our expense from the age of 28. 50 seems like a more reasonable age to me.

Stillhouette · 01-05-2015 2:35pm

noway12345 wrote: »

I think it was Sinn Féin who did it?

My mistake. You are correct, it was Martin McGuinness that made the claims but Pat Kenny then pushed him on it.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean Pat Kenny did his homework and found him out.

I am glad it happened as I am of the opinion that the man was not suitable for the position of president. I don't think I'd be allowed to say what I really think about him on here as boards.ie might see it as slanderous.

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 2:37pm

noway12345 wrote: »

So some discrimination is ok then?

No valid reasons to oppose the referendum so you're bringing in some irrelevant nonsense. I think it comes down to you going ewwwwwww young people.

Yes, some types of discrimination are ok.

I notice your debating skills are just as rapier sharp, no matter the topic.

Jmccoy1 · 01-05-2015 2:44pm

It's a definite no for me on this one, the president needs to have some maturity and life experience, at 21 that is usually severely lacking.

I also can't understand why this question is being asked, surely the removal of God from the presidents oath of office would be a more fitting question as it effectively bars people of no faith from office.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 2:54pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yes, some types of discrimination are ok.

I notice your debating skills are just as rapier sharp, no matter the topic.

So the equality movement is a load of nonsense then. Glad we cleared that up.

humanji · 01-05-2015 2:54pm

MOD: This thread is NOT about the SSM referendum.

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 2:58pm

noway12345 wrote: »

So the equality movement is a load of nonsense then. Glad we cleared that up.

Did we? How does discrimination based on age make us unequal?

We are all discriminated against based on age - equally.
We are all seen as children before the law, until we are 18 - equally.
We are all denied the opportunity to run for presidency before we turn 35 - equally.

Now if you were to propose a change that would make Catholics unable to run for presidency until they were 35, while atheists could run at 21, I would agree that we had an equality issue.

seamus · 01-05-2015 3:06pm

Jmccoy1 wrote: »

It's a definite no for me on this one, the president needs to have some maturity and life experience, at 21 that is usually severely lacking.

So if you think a candidate is unsuitable, don't vote for them. But blocking them from even running is repugnant to democracy.

The only remotely valid reason for a "no" on this one, I heard from my Dad. In that a younger candidate, being massively unlikely to get in, will only serve to split the vote and potentially result in the second best person being voted in rather than the best. The best candidate may lose a chunk of votes to the younger candidate, which don't pass on when the young candidate is eliminated.

But I guess that scenario is still true with the current system.

I also can't understand why this question is being asked, surely the removal of God from the presidents oath of office would be a more fitting question as it effectively bars people of no faith from office.

It's a soft one. FG committed to constitutional review. They're asking one big question and one pretty soft one so they can tick some boxes and say they put 8 amendments to the population during their time in government.

There's also the problem with conflicts. If you were to ask, for example, about removing the God bit from the constitution along with SSM, then you risk a lot of people conflating the two. Lots of people who'd be incensed about the God thing and would reject both amendments on various principles.

Ask the tough question along with a very uncontroversial and completely distinct one, and you don't risk any backlash or interference between the two topics.

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 3:15pm

seamus wrote: »

The only remotely valid reason for a "no" on this one, I heard from my Dad. In that a younger candidate, being massively unlikely to get in, will only serve to split the vote and potentially result in the second best person being voted in rather than the best. The best candidate may lose a chunk of votes to the younger candidate, which don't pass on when the young candidate is eliminated.

Surely Instant-runoff avoids this?

hullaballoo · 01-05-2015 3:18pm

I'm a no voter for this one.

The president of Ireland is mostly a ceremonial role, involving diplomacy, statesmanship etc. but one crucial part of the role is the protection offered by A26 of the constitution that allows legislation that passes through the Oireachtas to be sent to the Supreme Court for a pre-emptive decision regarding constitutionality.

That single presidential function is one of the most important in what remains of democracy in Ireland.

What has age got to do with it? Well, the office of the president is supposed to be an independent limb of the state, separate from the other limbs; the judiciary and the legislature. The reason is that to perform the above duties requires political impartiality.

Young people, who are starting their careers in their twenties and early thirties, who might be interested in running for the presidency, are going to have political aspirations. So, what they do whilst in office, they are going to do subject to their future political aspirations. Basically, if they were a Fine Gael supporter before taking up office, they will be Fine Gael supporters throughout their term in office because they are going to be Fine Gael supporters when their term is finished.

On the other hand, what makes the office suitable for older people, is that even people who spend their careers as trenchant party political schmoozers, when they achieve high office like the presidency or judiciary, more often than not abandon their political affiliations in favour of doing what they think is right.

Why? No future career consequences. They'll sit in office as president doing what they want (obviously fulfilling their required duties and not doing anything amounting to "stated misbehaviour", which could lead to impeachment.) Then, when their term expires, they retire happily to a decent pension and knowing they have done right by themselves, despite maybe having done some things they weren't entirely comfortable with in the past to advance their political career. If they're still to young to retire fully, they can go on the public speaking circuit with a whole career's worth of experience, good and bad, to talk about.

Having a president who can't see past their own personal motivations is a very, very bad idea and I don't think it's possible for someone who will absolutely have to find something else to do for the majority of their adult lives after the presidency to be objective enough to fill the obligations and responsibilities of the office.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 3:22pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Did we? How does discrimination based on age make us unequal?
We are all discriminated against based on age - equally.

We are all seen as children before the law, until we are 18 - equally.

We are all denied the opportunity to run for presidency before we turn 35 - equally.

Now if you were to propose a change that would make Catholics unable to run for presidency until they were 35, while atheists could run at 21, I would agree that we had an equality issue.

We can all run for president except if we're under 35 = Not equal.

biko · 01-05-2015 3:23pm

Youth is wasted on the young.

Paz-CCFC · 01-05-2015 3:25pm

Henry94 wrote: »

I'd favour raising the age to be honest. They get a pension for life and in theory someone could end up on the pigs back for life at our expense from the age of 28. 50 seems like a more reasonable age to me.

Pensions etc. is determined by legislation, which can be changed much more easily. Changing the Bunreacht to suit current legislation is a bit like changing the house the suit the windows.

It's a simple matter of consistency, for me. If 21 is the age for the Dáil, then I think it should be the age for the President, too. I'd prefer if they all matched the age of voting (the Dáil used to, but was never lowered when voting was), but at least this is some way consistent. The process of nomination and of getting voted in will, as mentioned, remain as tough as they currently are. Michael D needed a million votes to get elected last time. If someone in their 20s manages to get the backing of 20 Oireachtas members or four councils and a million voting citizens, then we'd have a political prodigy on our hands.

blinding · 01-05-2015 3:28pm

Its your duty to vote for a very old president that will die shortly after leaving office !

Think of the cost of their bloody pensions will ye ! ! !

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 3:33pm

noway12345 wrote: »

We can all run for president except if we're under 35 = Not equal.

We can all run for president when we turn 35 = Equal.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 3:36pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

We can all run for president when we turn 35 = Equal.

Anyone below 35 can't get a cushy job in the Áras = Unequal.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 3:38pm

I have to be careful though. Exposing hypocrisy is frowned upon around here!

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 3:38pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Anyone below 35 can't get a cushy job in the Áras = Unequal.

We could do this all day, but you have issues with classical logic that make it pointless to continue.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 3:39pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

We could do this all day, but you have issues with classical logic that make it pointless to continue.

You hate young people, stop hiding from it and just admit it. Be honest to yourself at least.

Spook_ie · 01-05-2015 3:41pm

Well I figure that as I'm voting no for the presidential one I'd better mark both papers no to ensure I get the right one!

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 3:41pm

noway12345 wrote: »

You hate young people, stop hiding from it and just admit it. Be honest to yourself at least.

You never answered this question:

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Would you, for example, advocate removing laws governing the sale of tobacco and alcohol to children based on the fact that you're discriminating against people younger than 18?

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 3:43pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

You never answered this question:

Playing the victim now? No one likes your bigoted views.

VisibleGorilla · 01-05-2015 3:43pm

I'll vote yes.

Hyzepher · 01-05-2015 3:50pm

noway12345 wrote: »

We can all run for president except if we're under 35 = Not equal.

Educate yourself on the legal definition of discrimination. Then come back.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 3:52pm

Hyzepher wrote: »

Educate yourself on the legal definition of discrimination. Then come back.

Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Zillah · 01-05-2015 3:58pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

We can all run for president when we turn 35 = Equal.

You're attacking the very concept of ageism here.
"I'm sorry, we won't hire a 60 year old in this company, only people in their 20s/30s"
"But that's not fair!"
"Yes it is, everyone was 28 once!"

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 4:03pm

Zillah wrote: »

You're attacking the very concept of ageism here.
"I'm sorry, we won't hire a 60 year old in this company, only people in their 20s/30s"
"But that's not fair!"
"Yes it is, everyone was 28 once!"

Yeah. I don't really have a problem with ageism.

It's written into my contract, for example, that I have to retire at 60. My company won't hire a 60 year old.

skooterblue2 · 01-05-2015 4:09pm

Really we need to define what a president should be:

Either a high court Judge or former member of either house of the Oireachtas
With a working knowledge of the law.
Healthy ambition to travel
Yet be old enough to have that experience so we arent paying him a pension after 7 years (21+7 =28 ... expected life ? 80? 50 x130k (not allowing for inflation =6.5 million) and still allowed to work and probably will have other appoinents)

Who at the age of 21 would you vote for that fill those roles? The closest one I can think of that I would vote for would be David Mc Williams. Diarmuid Ferriter? We could very easily end up with a Jedward presidency, Anyways I talked to a group of 18-24 yearolds about voting and only 6/60 were registered. I got responses like "Why would you want to do that?". The next generation will be so easy to control

TheChizler · 01-05-2015 4:17pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

We could very easily end up with a Jedward presidency, Anyways I talked to a group of 18-24 yearolds about voting and only 6/60 were registered. I got responses like "Why would you want to do that?". The next generation will be so easy to control

If the people most likely to vote in Jedward as president aren't registered and not likely to register then what's the problem?

skooterblue2 · 01-05-2015 4:28pm

Dont worry we will have E-Voting machine problem sorted by that time

seamus · 01-05-2015 4:28pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Having a president who can't see past their own personal motivations is a very, very bad idea and I don't think it's possible for someone who will absolutely have to find something else to do for the majority of their adult lives after the presidency to be objective enough to fill the obligations and responsibilities of the office.

While I don't disagree with the thrust of your post, couldn't the same argument be made for a 35 year old president? 7 years in, spend time greasing wheels everywhere, leave the presidency and land some really choice positions based on the pawns you moved during your time.

In fact, I would argue that a 35 year old in that regard is more dangerous than a 21 year old because the 35 year old is just beginning to hit the point in their career where they're within reach of senior management. They have a significant contact list and the experience to know how to use it effectively.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yeah. I don't really have a problem with ageism.

It's written into my contract, for example, that I have to retire at 60. My company won't hire a 60 year old.

Both provisions which are of course illegal in Ireland.

Just of course as it would be for any other body or institution in this country to have a policy that someone under 35 cannot apply for a job. Except for this one bizarre constitutional article which believes the electorate too incompetent to properly pick a president so the candidate list needs to be arbitrarily pre-filtered.

timetogo · 01-05-2015 4:30pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yeah. I don't really have a problem with ageism.

That's fine. Most people do though.

skooterblue2 · 01-05-2015 4:33pm

The proper age for the President should be realisitically be at a minimum of 55.
To allow for life experience, working knowledge of the law and general maturity

Santa Cruz · 01-05-2015 4:36pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

I'm voting yes on this one as it's not like the previous wrinkly office holders - excluding Mary Robinson - have been any great advertisement for the position. Give me an hereditary monarch any day as at last there's a bit of pomp and ceremony.

If Robinson was so great why didnt she go the full term instead of using the Presidency as something to put on her CV?

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 4:40pm

timetogo wrote: »

That's fine. Most people do though.

That's fine too.

I find it hard to see how a coherent argument can be formed against ageism though, that allows us to retain things like the state pension, lifetime community rating, the numerous laws that both protect and restrict people under the age of 18, etc.

timetogo · 01-05-2015 4:46pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That's fine too.

I find it hard to see how a coherent argument can be formed against ageism though, that allows us to retain things like the state pension, lifetime community rating, the numerous laws that both protect and restrict people under the age of 18, etc.

They're more to do with our development as humans though. Prior to 18 we haven't finished maturing mentally or physically. Some people may be a bit older or younger but you have to draw a line somewhere. Similarly the age for pension was brought about as it used to be a couple of years before we dropped off and community rating is meant to be be when we're starting to get a bit decrepid.

For the 21-35 discrimination it's only to do with experience. We don't really need to discriminate for that as if it's an immature idiot we can choose not to vote for them.

Riskymove · 01-05-2015 4:50pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The proper age for the President should be realisitically be at a minimum of 55.
To allow for life experience, working knowledge of the law and general maturity

but the Taoiseach who actually has the power to influence laws and how society is can be 21

makes sense....

NewCorkLad · 01-05-2015 4:51pm

timetogo wrote: »

They're more to do with our development as humans though. Prior to 18 we haven't finished maturing mentally or physically. Some people may be a bit older or younger but you have to draw a line somewhere. Similarly the age for pension was brought about as it used to be a couple of years before we dropped off and community rating is meant to be be when we're starting to get a bit decrepid.

For the 21-35 discrimination it's only to do with experience. We don't really need to discriminate for that as if it's an immature idiot we can choose not to vote for them.

Ya s***e politicians always get weeded out during the election process:rolleyes:

Neil3030 · 02-05-2015 1:18pm

robman60 wrote: »

There's no ambiguity because the Irish text takes precedence when there's a difference in the wording between the Constitutional texts. You must be 35, as the Irish text states clearly.

I just think this is such a waste of money. I know 35 is a very arbitrary figure but I think the position of Head of State should be held by someone after years of public service, not as some sort of way to launch a political career.

Well it does remove ambiguity from the English text at least.

And on using the presidency to launch a political career - what public service had Dana under her belt when she ran in 1997? I completely agree with you, by the way, on not wanting the presidency to be a fast-track into a political career, but I can't see how lowering the age will suddenly turn the Aras into a Montessori. Candidates will still need parliamentary and council backing before running, and ultimately the approval of the electorate to get elected.

How will you vote in the Age of the President referendum?

Comments