[Constitutional Convention][1][26 Jan 2013] Reducing the Presidential term of office

RangeR

The detail will be in the report. I'm reluctant to say too much as I can't remember everything that was said. Everyone had their own opinions and the report will reflect all of those opinions. However, from memory, it went a little like this.

A lot of people felt that two 7 year terms was too much.
Some felt that there should only be one 7 year term.
Some felt that there should be two 5 year terms.
Some felt that there should be two 4 year terms.
Some felt that two 7 year terms was fine.

It should also be noted that no question was mutually exclusive, and I don't think ever will. For example, if I'm asked to vote on "IF the term should be modified" and I chose NO. It doesn't exclude me from voting on "If the term IS modified, how would you like to see it modified". This give me the option of giving my opinion in question 1. But I also know that if my initial view is not upheld, I can give a second. Sort of like our existing STV, to an extent So this may skew the results if you JUST look at the voting figures. However, the report narrative [which should be ready for 100 review soon] will explain in detail what those results mean. Clear as mud?

However, regardless of the above, VERY few of us agreed that it should be in line with euro or dail elections. This would increase, we felt, the risk of party political persuasion. A lot of us favoured a skewed election of Pres Elections being 2 or so years after euro or dail ones.

The report will also show that we want the pres nomination and election process reformed. We want the people to have a say in who get's nominated. Not in so far as everyone can nominate someone but... If Nominee X gets 20,000 citizen signatures, he/she gets in to the pot.

There may have also been a recommendation to "reform" the amount of money needed to get nominated but I'm not too sure on that

Righty, off to lunch.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

The detail will be in the report. I'm reluctant to say too much as I can't remember everything that was said. Everyone had their own opinions and the report will reflect all of those opinions. However, from memory, it went a little like this.

A lot of people felt that two 7 year terms was too much.
Some felt that there should only be one 7 year term.
Some felt that two 7 year terms was fine.

so was there a vote on this?

when is report on this bit due

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

so was there a vote on this?

when is report on this bit due

We voted on this in January. Draft report should be ready in a week or two. Then the 100 either approve it or it gets re-drafted.

RangeR

I received a draft of the report a week ago. The report was presented to Government today so I assume there were no changes. Draft attached. Happy Reading.

Edit : Attachment is too big. Try this.

Annasopra

RangeR wrote: »

I received a draft of the report a week ago. The report was presented to Government today so I assume there were no changes. Draft attached. Happy Reading.

attached where?

RangeR

Try that now. Sorry. Don't think I ever "attached" in boards before Didn't see the error.

Annasopra

I'm still not seeing any attachments in any of your posts

Victor

https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e1f8e128-2496-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

RangeR

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm still not seeing any attachments in any of your posts

Sorry. Attachment won't work. I edited the post and put a link in there instead.

@Victor thats just a press release. I don't think the report is published on ccven yet.

Victor

RangeR wrote: »

@Victor thats just a press release. I don't think the report is published on ccven yet.

No, it seems to be a fairly substantial document.

RangeR

Victor wrote: »

No, it seems to be a fairly substantial document.

OooOoooo. Ill check it again.

RangeR

Victor wrote: »

No, it seems to be a fairly substantial document.

Victor, where did you get that link from? I still can't find the report on constitution.ie.

expectationlost

so the big vote in this section whether we should still have two 7 years terms ended up being 50/50 so what is the conclusion or recommendation from this section https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e1f8e128-2496-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

the convention didn't want 5 year terms but also didn't conclusivley want two seven year terms

RangeR

Post referendum, You could say we were off on this one. Well, we voted Yes but only by the tiniest of margins.

The Convention voted
Yes 50%
No 47%
Don't know 3%

You voted
Yes 26.94%
No 73.06%
Turnout 60.51%



eMail in. A word from Tom Arnold.

25 May 2015

Dear Members of the Convention on the Constitution

As the dust settles on the results of the referendums on same-sex marriage and on the age of candidacy for the Presidency, I thought it appropriate to write to Convention members to acknowledge their contribution to the exercise in democracy which the Irish people have engaged in this past week.

The same-sex marriage referendum has been passed by a considerable majority, albeit by a smaller margin than the vote in the Convention. There is great joy on the side of those who supported change. Those who voted against the proposition have responded to the result with graciousness, while retaining reservations about the possible consequences for our society. The task our political system now faces is to draft the legislation to give effect to yesterday's result while taking account of some of the legitimate concerns of the No side.

The Convention played an important role in bringing about yesterday's outcome. The weekend discussing same-sex marriage was marked by passionate, honest and at times painful debate. But no-one who participated in that debate, just over two years ago, could forget the intensity of the experience and the honesty of purpose of Convention members in exercising their role as Irish citizens.

Our first working meeting, in January 2013, discussed the voting age and the length of the Presidential term. The proposition to reduce the age of candidacy for the Presidency, voted upon last Friday, was an early example of the Convention adopting a somewhat broader interpretation of the precise agenda upon which we had been asked to consider and propose recommendations. The proposition has been considered by the Irish people who have decided, on this occasion, to retain the Constitutional position that the age of candidacy for the Presidency should be 35 years.

At this time, we should also remember the hugely valuable contribution of those who assisted us in our work – the academic team led by Prof. David Farrell and our experts, our facilitators and note-takers and the Convention secretariat.

I’d also like to remind those of you who wish to re-live the moment or consider again any of the issues raised during our deliberations that the website remains a valuable resource, with videos, submissions, reports and analysis (www.president.ie).

I hope that all of you, in your post-Convention life, are well. I recall the extraordinary engagement and commitment shown by Convention members during our sixteen months of working together. We were privileged to play a unique role as Irish citizens in the democratic process which found expression in this week's two referendums. For this reason, I thought it timely and appropriate to re-connect with you and, for those of you who are not in public spotlight, I hope your engagement in citizen and public life has continued.

With every best wish for the future.

Tom Arnold
Chairman, Convention on the Irish Constitution

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Post referendum, You could say we were off on this one. Well, we voted Yes but only by the tiniest of margins.

The Convention voted
Yes 50%
No 47%
Don't know 3%

You voted
Yes 26.94%
No 73.06%
Turnout 60.51%



eMail in. A word from Tom Arnold.

why does he link to president.ie