Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
12357…14

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    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.


  • Options
    #123
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    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.


  • Options
    #124
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Youth is wasted on the young.


  • Options
    #125
    Paz-CCFC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭Paz-CCFC


    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.


  • Options
    #126
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    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 ! ! !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    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.


  • Options
    #128
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    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.


  • Options
    #129
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


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


  • Options
    #130
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    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.


  • Options
    #131
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    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!


  • Options
    #133
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    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?


  • Options
    #134
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    You never answered this question:

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


  • Options
    #135
    VisibleGorilla
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭VisibleGorilla


    I'll vote yes.


  • Options
    #136
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,659 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    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.


  • Options
    #137
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    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.


  • Options
    #138
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    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!"


  • Options
    #139
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    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.


  • Options
    #140
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    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


  • Options
    #141
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,426 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


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


  • Options
    #143
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    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.


  • Options
    #144
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Yeah. I don't really have a problem with ageism.

    That's fine. Most people do though.


  • Options
    #145
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    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


  • Options
    #146
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    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?


  • Options
    #147
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    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.


  • Options
    #148
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    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.


  • Options
    #149
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    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....:confused:


  • Options
    #150
    NewCorkLad
    Registered Users Posts: 957 ✭✭✭NewCorkLad


    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:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 17,011 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    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.


Advertisement