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

thesimpsons · 02-05-2015 1:34pm

if we had a 21 yr old president, 7 years later (or even 14 in case of re-election) there is a potential of over 50 years of pension payments :eek: country be broke

Joe prim · 02-05-2015 2:44pm

thesimpsons wrote: »

if we had a 21 yr old president, 7 years later (or even 14 in case of re-election) there is a potential of over 50 years of pension payments :eek: country be broke

I don't think my voting intentions have ever been influenced by a post on Boards.ie before, but this is about the best reason i can think of to vote a big NO

( Just as a matter of information, will the married gay guys and gals be eligible for gay pensions, just asking?)

elfy4eva · 02-05-2015 2:52pm

I'm voting yes because I believe there's no harm in having more options.

At the end of the day each candidate in a presidential election has to be voted for. And let's face it a 21 year old candidate is going to be under a lot of scrutiny from skeptical people. Point is, they still have to convince the public that they're capable of filling the position.

And if they can convince a public vote that they are worthy, fair fcuks to them they deserve it.

BoJack Horseman · 02-05-2015 2:54pm

I'm voting 'Yes' because why is a 35 yr old better suited for presidency compared to a 34 year old.

It moronic the stipulation even exists.

keeponhurling · 02-05-2015 3:53pm

Joe prim wrote: »

I don't think my voting intentions have ever been influenced by a post on Boards.ie before, but this is about the best reason i can think of to vote a big NO

We just want equality, you're all bigots, there is no reason to vote no only to promote discrimination.....disgraceful we even need to vote on this

Oh hang on, wrong thread

02-05-2015 4:41pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm voting 'Yes' because why is a 35 yr old better suited for presidency compared to a 34 year old.

And why is a 21 year old better suited than a 20 year old. They're both adults.

Santa Cruz · 02-05-2015 5:31pm

I hope all those No voters realise that we cant have a President Jedward for another 15 years. But then we could get two for the price of one

skooterblue2 · 02-05-2015 6:29pm

Neil3030 wrote: »

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.

In all fairness Dana is a terrible example of a presidential candidate. She is a US citizen. I dont know where Dana has been since 1973.... she just appear out of no where and decided "I am going to be President". Her huband own a Christian Television network in the States. Basically she planned to buy the presidentcy. I didnt see any firm knowledge of Law, Public service, a public organisation (IFA, GAA) and a question she was realistically focused with her outside interests.

The final nail in the coffin was at the last presidential Election, They asked every candidate what the planned to do as president. Each one had laid out ther focus, Dana said she didnt know... she hadnt thought about it. She had been running for the last 14 years and now is her chance and "She hoped she would grow into it". She was also crap as an MEP

RayM · 02-05-2015 6:48pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Will the yes side be ripping down NO posters, making a laugh of anyone voting no and calling them all bigots?

Will the No side be telling lots of lies and wheeling out 21-year-old 'useful idiots' who oppose the referendum?

Paz-CCFC · 02-05-2015 6:54pm

Deleted User wrote: »

And why is a 21 year old better suited than a 20 year old. They're both adults.

It should be 18, in line with voting/adulthood (along with lowering the age to be a TD). But at least 21 is something. It'd be stupid to vote no to lowering it to 21 because you think it should be 18.

Cold War Kid · 02-05-2015 6:56pm

Definitely no. I know 21 doesn't mean every president from then on will automatically be 21, but life and job experience is hardly too much to ask for such a role.
It's not ageist - that's like saying it's ageist not to hire a 21-year-old to be a managing director when they have a degree and a small bit of work/life experience.

skooterblue2 · 02-05-2015 6:58pm

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

It should be 18, in line with voting/adulthood (along with lowering the age to be a TD). But at least 21 is something. It'd be stupid to vote no to lowering it to 21 because you think it should be 18.

Name one 18 year old that you think should be elected to be run as President with a working knowledge Law and suitable for the position?

shooterjay · 02-05-2015 6:59pm

isnt it kind of moot ? no one would vote a kid in anyway ?

skooterblue2 · 02-05-2015 7:00pm

shooterjay wrote: »

isnt it kind of moot ? no one would vote a kid in anyway ?

Dan Quale and President George W. Bush?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 02-05-2015 7:01pm

shooterjay wrote: »

isnt it kind of moot ? no one would vote a kid in anyway ?

It's unlikely that we'll ever even have a President in their 30s imo.

RayM · 02-05-2015 7:03pm

I'll be voting Yes because I don't think age should be a barrier to running.

02-05-2015 9:37pm

Its just political correctness. Everybody accepts that the qualities appropriate for a President are not found in a 21 year old, but yet we should change the constitution because it's supposed to look good.

thecamcam · 02-05-2015 10:36pm

i think 35 should be the min age for pres

LoganRice · 02-05-2015 10:39pm

All hail Atari Jaguar

nxbyveromdwjpg · 02-05-2015 10:49pm

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Definitely no. I know 21 doesn't mean every president from then on will automatically be 21, but life and job experience is hardly too much to ask for such a role.

Then don't vote for the 21 year old that's running.

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It's not ageist - that's like saying it's ageist not to hire a 21-year-old to be a managing director when they have a degree and a small bit of work/life experience.

21 year olds can apply for any job they want, including managing director. Whether they actually get it or not is a different matter completely but if they were genuinely the best person for the job, they have the right to apply like everyone else and that's the whole point.

Bannasidhe · 02-05-2015 10:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Its just political correctness. Everybody accepts that the qualities appropriate for a President are not found in a 21 year old, but yet we should change the constitution because it's supposed to look good.

What about a 30 year old? They couldn't run either at the moment.

I think if a 21 or 25 or 29 or 32 year old can get the nomination let them run and I'll consider them alongside the other candidates.

I mean Dana ran.

Dana!

She stated she wouldn't sign into law legislation that conflicted with her religious beliefs - lacking the appropriate qualities (or understanding of the role of President) isn't an age thing...

ebbsy · 02-05-2015 10:54pm

Tempest 2000. What a game.

Zaph · 02-05-2015 10:55pm

The office of president carries very little real power other than the ability to refer bills to the Supreme Court if there are potential issues regarding constitutionality. However the president does represent the country abroad and when foreign leaders visit Ireland, and therefore it's important that they have at least some degree of gravitas so that they can be taken seriously. While I have nothing against 21 year olds, they simply do not possess that level of gravitas. To be honest, I'm not sure there are many 35 year olds that have it either, but at least there's a better chance they'd be taken seriously on the world stage than someone in their 20s. I'm not saying that's necessarily right, but it's how the world works and for that reason I'll be voting no.

North of 32 · 02-05-2015 11:01pm

Christ above, I love how people are thinking about this logically. It's not changing the bracket to 21 and 35+, it's changing it to 21+.

Why are people thinking about this in terms of imagining the most immature 21 year old they know and deciding, ''no, I wouldn't want that person as president". Moreover, do people realise you need signatures from serving politicians to be nominated for president, and that realistically, you need the support of a whole party?

I'm voting yes because as other people have said, someone at 34 is just as capable. In fact, someone in their late 20s is more than capable. Age shouldn't be a barrier.

Plus, I think lowering the age limit might lead to a more politically engaged youth which is something we really need in Ireland.

skooterblue2 · 02-05-2015 11:36pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What about a 30 year old? They couldn't run either at the moment.

I think if a 21 or 25 or 29 or 32 year old can get the nomination let them run and I'll consider them alongside the other candidates.

Name one thirty year old who has the qualifications and the experience to be president?

I know no one under 50 who I would consider suitable...... well maybe Ronan Keating

sdanseo · 02-05-2015 11:41pm

Absolutely not.

I was 21 five years ago, and I don't think I'd be mature enough at present to carry the burdens a President has to carry - albeit with extreme irregularity. The first citizen of the state needs to be of a certain age and level of cop-on, and 21 isn't that, not even those that are most mature.

skooterblue2 · 02-05-2015 11:46pm

There is definitley a problem that the Youth are not engaged to vote and with political life. It will be so easy to control the next generation.

Bannasidhe · 03-05-2015 9:17am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Name one thirty year old who has the qualifications and the experience to be president?

I know no one under 50 who I would consider suitable...... well maybe Ronan Keating

As I don't keep track of every single present and future 30 year old in the country I'm not sure how you expect me to answer that question tbh.

We are talking about letting people aged between 21 and 34 seek a nomination and run - that's it.

Allow them to apply.
Not give them the bloody job just for showing up.

If people don't think they are up to doing the job - don't vote for them.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 03-05-2015 10:32am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We are talking about letting people aged between 21 and 34 seek a nomination and run - that's it

It's staggering the amount of people here that can't get their head around this.

All the no's are responding as if we're having a referendum to put a 21 year old directly into office.

Anyone should be allowed run.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 10:47am

nm wrote: »

It's staggering the amount of people here that can't get their head around this.

All the no's are responding as if we're having a referendum to put a 21 year old directly into office.

Anyone should be allowed run.

Anyone?
People with criminal records?
People without a working knowledge of law?
People who have been absent fro the country for an extended period of time?
People who have taken an oath of allegiance to another country?
People who have been dishonourably discharged from the defence forces?
People who were born outside Ireland?
People who have been bankrupt?
People convicted of perjury?

Might want to think that one through

nxbyveromdwjpg · 03-05-2015 10:49am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Anyone?
People with criminal records?
People without a working knowledge of law?
People who have been absent fro the country for an extended period of time?
People who have taken an oath of allegiance to another country?
People who have been dishonourably discharged from the defence forces?
People who were born outside Ireland?
People who have been bankrupt?
People convicted of perjury?

Might want to think that one through

Yes anyone should be able to run, same as anyone can apply for any job, no matter what age they are.
You realise that they are not going to be voted in right?

In any case your post is a bit weird since there is nothing preventing most of the examples above from running as it stands anyway.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 10:58am

nm wrote: »

Yes anyone should be able to run, same as anyone can apply for any job, no matter what age they are.
You realise that they are not going to be voted in right?

Not everyone can apply for any job.
Most jobs I see have a minimum requirements. It is to weed out those unsuitable.
These are usual based on Education, experience and age, driving lisence.

To find a presidential candidate is a near impossible task. Someone who is known, is seen to be fair and impartial, qualified and healthy to travel and the savvy to side step traps laid for them by political opponents. Then to find someone who actually wants the job....

nxbyveromdwjpg · 03-05-2015 11:02am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Not everyone can apply for any job.
Most jobs I see have a minimum requirements. It is to weed out those unsuitable.

Written into the constitution? I don't think so.

The best person will always get the job, that's standard and obvious and there should not be a legal blockade if that person happens to be under 35.

If they are not the most suitable they will not be voted in.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 11:08am

nm wrote: »

Y
In any case your post is a bit weird since there is nothing preventing most of the examples above from running as it stands anyway.

Want me to take it appart for you?
A convicted criminal? Self explanatory
People without a working knowledge of law? how are you going to sign into law something if you cannot read and understand the implcations of constitutional law? I can safely say I am over 35 and am university educated and wouldnt go near it.

People who have been absent fro the country for an extended period of time?
How would citizens relate to a person who turned up after being away for 20 years and said "hi I wanna be Prez, havent half of the above qualifications but I'll grow into the role".

People who have taken an oath of allegiance to another country?
If you have taken an oath of allegiance to protet and defend another country, cant you see a conflict of interest?

People who have been dishonourably discharged from the defence forces?
Serious offence.

People who were born outside Ireland?
Conflict of interest

People who have been bankrupt?
Someone who may be compromised easily
People convicted of perjury?
Self explanatory

ShoulderChip · 03-05-2015 11:11am

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It's not ageist - that's like saying it's ageist not to hire a 21-year-old to be a managing director when they have a degree and a small bit of work/life experience.

Agreed, just a bit stupid when you look at the most successful companies of today.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 03-05-2015 11:14am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Want me to take it appart for you?
A convicted criminal? Self explanatory
People without a working knowledge of law? how are you going to sign into law something if you cannot read and understand the implcations of constitutional law? I can safely say I am over 35 and am university educated and wouldnt go near it.

People who have been absent fro the country for an extended period of time?
How would citizens relate to a person who turned up after being away for 20 years and said "hi I wanna be Prez, havent half of the above qualifications but I'll grow into the role".

People who have taken an oath of allegiance to another country?
If you have taken an oath of allegiance to protet and defend another country, cant you see a conflict of interest?

People who have been dishonourably discharged from the defence forces?
Serious offence.

People who were born outside Ireland?
Conflict of interest

People who have been bankrupt?
Someone who may be compromised easily
People convicted of perjury?
Self explanatory

Yes it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't be voted into the office of president.

The point, which you're still continuing to completely miss, is that this is simply about the right to run.

This is about the age restriction on running in constitution. All that rubbish you've posted is a complete and utter straw man argument.

03-05-2015 11:18am

nm wrote: »

The point, which you're still continuing to completely miss, is that this is simply about the right to run.

Then why pick an arbitrary age? If all citizens were allowed to run, the age should be 18. That might have some logic, but by asking us to agree that a 21 year old is ok to run but a 20 year old is not, they destroy their case.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 11:19am

nm wrote: »

Written into the constitution? I don't think so.

The best person will always get the job, that's standard and obvious and there should not be a legal blockade if that person happens to be under 35.

If they are not the most suitable they will not be voted in.

Christ ..... the night Brian Cowen signed in the Bank Bail out do you think he was sober? Do you think John Tierney (CEO Irish Water) has a good record of management?

Wait until you get out in the world not everyone gets jobs based on suitablity. Sometimes there are sweet heart deals, old favours, ability to be morally flexible, people promoted by organisations with vested interests. There used to be a time when you could recuse yourself because of conflict of interest, havent seen it done for a long time nnow.

ShoulderChip · 03-05-2015 11:22am

nm wrote: »

Yes it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't be voted into the office of president.

The point, which you're still continuing to completely miss, is that this is simply about the right to run.

Yes what is it with people answering the wrong question, like people bringing children into the marriage refferendum, it is complete and utterly irrelevant.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 11:26am

nm wrote: »

This is about the age restriction on running in constitution. All that rubbish you've posted is a complete and utter straw man argument.

Point out someone at 45 who fulfills my criteria for President who would run and I will votes Yes for someone to be elected president at 21.

What if you had 6 candidates under 30 submitted by various interests?

The government AND opposition (and influences outside the state) has colluded in the past to put in "an Agreed Candidate"...... so dont think they wont try in the future again.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 11:28am

ShoulderChip wrote: »

.................. it is complete and utterly irrelevant.

Exactly a 21 year old has nothing to do with the office of president, wait at least until the voice has broken.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 03-05-2015 11:30am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Christ ..... the night Brian Cowen signed in the Bank Bail out do you think he was sober? Do you think John Tierney (CEO Irish Water) has a good record of management?

Wait until you get out in the world not everyone gets jobs based on suitablity. Sometimes there are sweet heart deals, old favours, ability to be morally flexible, people promoted by organisations with vested interests. There used to be a time when you could recuse yourself because of conflict of interest, havent seen it done for a long time nnow.

And.. ? What does that have to do with this referendum?

Do you think under 35 year olds are more susceptible to this? You realise Brian Cowen and John Tierney are both over 35?

I don't think someone in their 20's will be elected to president any time soon but if they did it would probably make the situation like you describe better, not worse.

Again though, straw man argument.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 03-05-2015 11:32am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Point out someone at 45 who fulfills my criteria for President who would run and I will votes Yes for someone to be elected president at 21.

Omg.. /bangs head off wall.

How many times can the same thing be said? This isn't going to automatically elect anyone, 21 years old or otherwise.

The people of Ireland decide who gets the president job when they vote for him or her. Doesn't fill your criteria? Don't vote for them and vote to the candidate that does. But there should not be a legal restriction on who can or can't run - that's the only thing is referendum is for.

Simple.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 11:33am

nm wrote: »

And.. ? What does that have to do with this referendum?

Do you think under 35 year olds are more susceptible to this? You realise Brian Cowen and John Tierney are both over 35?

I don't think someone in their 20's will be elected to president any time soon but if they did it would probably make the situation like you describe better, not worse.

Again though, straw man argument.

Point beng they were not the best characters for the job, the argue ment being made was the best man always gets the job. The over 35 bit ? not part of my arguement.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 11:34am

nm wrote: »

Omg.. /bangs head off wall.

How many times can the same thing be said? This isn't going to automatically elect anyone, 21 years old or otherwise.

The people of Ireland decide who gets the president job when they vote for him or her. Doesn't fill your criteria? Don't vote for them and vote to the candidate that does. But there should not be a legal restriction on who can or can't run - that's the only thing is referendum is for.

Simple.

What if you are faced with 6 candidates under 30?

Would you run a rocking horse in the grand national? Commonsense ? No. This is silly referundum. Candidates should have to come up throught the "ranks" based on their own merit. I still havent heard of a suitable candidate under 45 apparts from Ronan Keating.

ShoulderChip · 03-05-2015 11:36am

argh its not about whether they should become president, its about whether you are happy to keep preventing them from seeking a nomination.

03-05-2015 11:41am

ShoulderChip wrote: »

its about whether you are happy to keep preventing them from seeking a nomination.

I am. No tyrekickers need apply.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 11:43am

ShoulderChip wrote: »

argh its not about whether they should become president, its about whether you are happy to keep preventing them from seeking a nomination.

Why would a party enter a candidate that has no chance of winning? Party leader would have to step down if he made a mistake that badly.
If you want a political career go start at the bottom where everyone else does, Students Union, Macra na Feirme, Trade Union, GAA, Irish farmers Association, Youth political movements something in and around that. Not worth changing the constitution for a get on the ladder quick political scheme.

No one has addressed the cost of a 28 year old ex presidents pension.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 03-05-2015 11:50am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

What if you are faced with 6 candidates under 30?

Come on, really?

What if the sky falls in?

ShoulderChip · 03-05-2015 11:53am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Why would a party enter a candidate that has no chance of winning? Party leader would have to step down if he made a mistake that badly.

Exactly, so you have nothing to worry about by voting yes if that is your concern.

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

Comments