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

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 1:56pm

kylith wrote: »

Some information for people who, like me, are on the fence.

A presidential candidate must be nominated by 20 members of the Oireachtas OR 4 local authorities.

I discovered this chatting to some colleagues over lunch. TBH I'm kind of surprised that no-one on the Yes side of this debate here thought to mention the criteria for even being able to run for president as it would surely be an exceptional 21 year old who could get so many nominations. It's certainly put a different slant on things for me.

during the last presidential election there was a bit of a story around David Norris running around the country trying to get nominated. I think it was him anyway.

TheChizler · 01-05-2015 1:56pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

My inclination is to say "no", but I'm very much a floating voter on this one. I don't really know why it's being asked, or why it matters. But my gut says a 21 year old president is a pretty laughable proposition.

If anyone cares enough to try and turn me, I'm open to a persuasive argument.

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.

Stillhouette · 01-05-2015 1:58pm

TheChizler wrote: »

I trust the electorate to not vote for someone for the laugh or isn't mature or capable.

Sean Gallagher was doing well in the polls until Pat Kenny did a hatchet job on him on live tv so I wouldn't be so trusting.

timetogo · 01-05-2015 1:59pm

shroom007 wrote: »

No. 1 what kind of FG/FF 21yr old knob would you get going for this and 2 some cnut like louis walsh would put scumward or a x factor reject forward for election thinking it great.3 it would be a fu*kin shoe in for some minister/ex minister/teashops bastid son or daughter an O'Rourke AHearn Haughty OCuiv(Dev) etc etc etc etc etc

2 & 3 are covered by the fact that they have to be nominated by members of the Oireachtas, not Louis Walsh or 1 minister only.

As for number 1. So what. Unless all of the candidates are 21 you can vote for somebody else.

alroley · 01-05-2015 1:59pm

I'm not sure yet. Think I'm leaning towards yes though.

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.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 1:59pm

Stillhouette wrote: »

Sean Gallagher was doing well in the polls until Pat Kenny did a hatchet job on him on live tv so I wouldn't be so trusting.

I think it was Sinn Féin who did it?

kylith · 01-05-2015 2:00pm

TheChizler wrote: »

The whole constitution needs a bit of a tidy up tbh.

I'd vote for that! The constitution was written nearly 80 years ago and could certainly use a going over with a modern eye.

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 2:00pm

Stillhouette wrote: »

Sean Gallagher was doing well in the polls until Pat Kenny did a hatchet job on him on live tv so I wouldn't be so trusting.

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

ThunbergsAreGo · 01-05-2015 2:01pm

Discrimination based on age is still discrimination, let whoever run

Joe prim · 01-05-2015 2:04pm

jamesbere wrote: »

I wouldn't like a retarded jew either

This comment is so offensive that I can't even decide the actual basis on which I'm offended, only that I'm deeply,deeply offended at your use of a misprint to commit an outrageous and deeply, deeply offensive pun.....

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?

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

Comments