There’s a second referendum happening on 22 May

Chucken

On 22 May, the electorate will be asked about the age of eligibility to be the President of Ireland. Currently, candidates must be 35 years or older but the government wants to reduce this to 21 years of age following a recommendation by the constitutional convention.

What way will you vote?

I'll be voting to lower the age to 21. The presidential role in Ireland is that of a figurehead and not a decision maker.

Nodin

21 will do fer me too, thank you.

Canis Lupus

Chucken wrote: »

On 22 May, the electorate will be asked about the age of eligibility to be the President of Ireland. Currently, candidates must be 35 years or older but the government wants to reduce this to 21 years of age following a recommendation by the constitutional convention.

What way will you vote?

I'll be voting to lower the age to 21. The presidential role in Ireland is that of a figurehead and not a decision maker.

21 is a child.

Banjo String

Canis Lupus wrote: »

21 is a child.

Lies.

21 is an album by Adele her second released in 2011. (I'm ashamed to know that btw)

fleet_admiral

There should be a height restriction....

CantGetNoSleep

I'll be voting no, just because I think there were far more pressing recommendations coming from the Constitutional Convention, like emigrants voting for the President

Faith+1

21 is way too young. Should stay at 35.

Kevin McCloud

They should cap off the max age too to 65.

The Backwards Man

YES

I'll be voting no.

Age of the president doesn't bother me, but you know what will happen?

RTE, Saturday evenings, prime time, presented by Ray D'Arcy, Linda Martin and Dana:

Aim For The Aras; Ireland's Next Prez.

MagicMarker

A 21 year president would be utterly ludicrous.

If I were to vote, then I'd vote no. But this is such a stupidly pointless referendum that I won't be arsed voting in it.

Why don't we spend our energy on something a little more worthwhile, say like an abortion referendum???

dasdog

This is more of the let's pretend Ireland is forward thinking democratic country nonsense while Bunreacht na hEireann still remains on church approved v1.0.

Thelomen Toblackai

I'll be voting to lower it. Stephen Donnelly said it well in the Dail the reasons for having it over 35 is the viewpoint that those over 35 will exercise wise discretion. And decisions from previous governments are categorical proof that being over 35 doesn't give anyone the ability to exercise wise discretion. So its pretty much pointless to have it at the random age of 35.

Chucken

Canis Lupus wrote: »

21 is a child.

Old enough to vote. Old enough to join the army.Old enough to fight and possibly die for their country.

But not old enough to run for President?

The_Valeyard

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'll be voting no.

Age of the president doesn't bother me, but you know what will happen?

RTE, Saturday evenings, prime time, presented by Ray D'Arcy, Linda Martin and Dana:

Aim For The Aras; Ireland's Next Prez.

This.

conorhal

At 21 you should be out clubbing and shagging and acquiring some valuable life experience that might someday equip you for the post. I'd be very suspicious of any 21yr old running for president.

This ref is another example of the 'tyranny of youth'. At 21 I knew it all, at 35 it was apparent to me how little I knew, but today age and experience are to be scorned, with no small irony, by those who will one day be inevitably afflicted by them.

Paz-CCFC

Chucken wrote: »

Old enough to vote. Old enough to join the army.Old enough to fight and possibly die for their country.

But not old enough to run for President?

And old enough to be elected to the Dáil and be appointed Taoiseach. If you can be appointed as the executive leader of the State, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to be elected as the ceremonial leader.

In reality, it's highly unlikely that someone that young would be elected, anyway. It'll just make it consistent with the rest of the elections.

Canis Lupus

Chucken wrote: »

Old enough to vote. Old enough to join the army.Old enough to fight and possibly die for their country.

But not old enough to run for President?

Yeah... If it was a male I just have an image of a college grad in an ill fitting suit barely able to shave being our president...

What can I say, I'm ageist.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I think this is the most pointless referendum to ever be put before the people in the history of the state.

In practical terms, only long term party loyalists get put on the ticket so no one under 35 from FG, FF, SF, LAB will be put forward as a Presidential candidate any time soon. Don't think an actual independent has ever won the Presidential race as well, and added to this, the role is essentially just ceremonial anyway which makes this referendum amount to literal meaninglessness.
I think reducing the term in office from 7 to 5 years would be of more tangible benefit to the role. Or extending voting rights to Irish northerners.

I would rather a vote on something more pertinent; like abortion, cannabis legalisation, fathers rights, Irish water, the separation of our education system and the church, off-licence opening hours/minimum pricing, reform of the Irish Medical Council, euthanasia ect.

I would like to vote on something, anything, that can effect my life or someone I knows life please and not on something as trivial as the age of the President.

Chucken

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I think this is the most pointless referendum to ever be put before the people in the history of the state.

You don't think it could be that is Enda and Co. are trying to appeal to a younger generation of voters by showing them how important they are by giving them them the possibility of becoming president?

Nothing to do with the next General election at all...at all

LeinsterDub

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I'll be voting no, just because I think there were far more pressing recommendations coming from the Constitutional Convention, like emigrants voting for the President

Awh the great Irish protest vote

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Chucken wrote: »

You don't think it could be that is Enda and Co. are trying to appeal to a younger generation of voters by showing them how important they are by giving them them the possibility of becoming president?

Nothing to do with the next General election at all...at all

'Political reform' at it's most inconsequential. :cool:

I'm gonna vote in favour of it. Just because a 21 year old would be allowed to run doesn't mean any 21 year old will run, and if a 21 year old does run then it doesn't mean that they'd get elected.
And why shouldn't a 34 year old be allowed run? Or 30? 28? What age is "too young"?

I imagine it will be defeated though, due to voter apathy and the No vote from the type of people who'd vote against anything to get back at 'teh gubberment'.

bb1234567

Im laughing thinking about an uppity little over zealous college kid making decisions for our country

SEPT 23 1989

I would question the sanity of a person who wants to be president at 21

Chucken

bb1234567 wrote: »

Im laughing thinking about an uppity little over zealous college kid making decisions for our country

Laugh away, he/she wouldn't be making any decisions.

The formal powers and functions of the President are prescribed in the Constitution. The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises them on the advice of the Government.

uck51js9zml2yt

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I would question the sanity of a person who wants to be president at 21

Nice to have on the CV.
Diplomatic skills, cross cultural experience, decision making, ability to screw with govt legislation.

Gmol

Voting for da Gheys to be 35 and the presidents to be legal.

bb1234567

Chucken wrote: »

Laugh away, he/she wouldn't be making any decisions.

The formal powers and functions of the President are prescribed in the Constitution. The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises them on the advice of the Government.

Still, having somebody who's practically a teenager represent us at major events seems a bit ridiculous. But I suppose I'll hold my judgement.

RobertKK

YES

Voting no, also a by election given we finally got rid of Big Phil.

Señor Fancy Pants

I'm not sure. I know An tUachtarain is a symbol and figurehead of the Nation and not a policy maker as such. I can see from a quick Google that most countries with a President, candidates need to be 30/35 or 40. France seems to be 18.

Not that I am against a 21 year old becoming the President but what message does that send on an international stage? Will they take that person seriously? Will they see it simply as that person holding office as a publicity stunt and will Ireland suffer in some respects because of that?

Will we be made a mockery of behind closed doors? Will we lose any type of credibility if we have a leader who has virtually zero experience in politics, economics, strategy, international relations or life experience?

Who knows.

shruikan2553

I probably wouldnt bother voting if I wasnt already voting in the other referendum. I see no reason not to lower the age. Nothing special happens at 35 to make you a good president. Some people will claim an older person would have more experience in things but that doesnt make them good at anything. I doubt the president will be chosen from a crowd at random so probably wouldn't be getting a 21 year old president anyway.

Kevin McCloud

Truffle Pig wrote: »

Not that I am against a 21 year old becoming the President but what message does that send on an international stage? Will they take that person seriously? Will they see it simply as that person holding office as a publicity stunt and will Ireland suffer in some respects because of that?

Will we be made a mockery of behind closed doors? Will we lose any type of credibility if we have a leader who has virtually zero experience in politics, economics, strategy, international relations or life experience?

So many questions so little time.

Señor Fancy Pants

Kevin McCloud wrote: »

So many questions so little time.

Ah there's a couple of weeks left Kevin.

Or we can just leave them as the rhetorical questions which they were meant to be.

Are you any relation to Duncan?

Kevin McCloud

Truffle Pig wrote: »

Are you any relation to Duncan?

My ancestors are.

dxhound2005

There will be two referendums on 22 May. Neither has been designated as the first or the second.

The turnout for each will show how the electorate regard their importance. Some referendums in the past have had a turnout of under 30%.

Eugene Norman

YES

What I'll be doing -- while voting yes on the other more important issue -- is writing "I don't give a toss" on this one. Unless there is one ballot paper and that's likely to invalidate both votes then I will leave it blank.

What annoys me is this is what they are suggesting changing in the constitution? Why not remove God or blasphemy? You want to help the kids, build more houses. Do something useful.

Given the nature of the role and irish politics the president is generally an elder statesman. If we change this it will affect nothing in practice.


It's not even a populist move. There is no demand for it. The fact that cabinet even contemplates this and didn't toss the idea after a minutes discussion and move into other constitutional reforms indicates a limited intellectual budget. Presumably they felt they had to have two items because ( as Edna no doubt pointed out in his teacherly fashion) two is bigger than one but smaller than three (isn't that right, Noonan ?).

Moronic waste of a referendum which we could use to change much more pressing anachronisms at the same time as the marriage referendum.

lertsnim

I wont be voting for this. 35 is right.

dxhound2005

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What I'll be doing -- while voting yes on the other more important issue -- is writing "I don't give a toss" on this one. Unless there is one ballot paper and that's likely to invalidate both votes then I will leave it blank.

What annoys me is this is what they are changing in the constitution? Why not remove God or blasphemy? You want to help the kids, build more houses. Do something useful.

Given the nature of the role and irish politics the president is generally an elder statesman. If we change this it will affect nothing in practice.


It's not even a populist move. There is no demand for it. The fact that cabinet even contemplates this and didn't toss the idea after a minutes discussion and move into other constitutional reforms indicates a limited intellectual budget. Presumably they felt they had to have two items because ( as Edna no doubt pointed out in his teacherly fashion) two is bigger than one but smaller than three (isn't that right, Noonan ?).

Moronic waste of a referendum which we could use to change much more pressing anachronisms at the same time as the marriage referendum.

They will not be changing anything. You will, we will, those of us that bother to vote will. Or we may decide to keep the status quo. The referendum is a recommendation of the members of the Constitutional Convention. Populism was not one of their criteria for recommending changes.

Eugene Norman

YES

dxhound2005 wrote: »

They will not be changing anything. You will, we will, those of us that bother to vote will. Or we may decide to keep the status quo. The referendum is a recommendation of the members of the Constitutional Convention. Populism was not one of their criteria for recommending changes.

Yeah. You've picked up on a badly phrased part of my [original] post to ignore the main point. If you feel like engaging the main points -- why not add more substantial changes to the ballot where they have the chance -- feel free to do so.

conorh91

Something in the recesses of my brain tells me we have already changed the pension laws, so that future Presidents will not get a pension until the age of 66.

However, if we haven't done that already, then we should do it now. I wouldn't like the idea of a 35-year-old on a €140k pension after 'retirement', even if the chances of that happening are remote.

With the above qualifier, I'm voting Yes.

dxhound2005

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Yeah. You've picked up on a badly phrased part of my [original] post to ignore the main point. If you feel like engaging the main points -- why not add more substantial changes to the ballot where they have the chance -- feel free to do so.

Your are just one voter. So am I. Your agenda doesn't hold any more weight than that of any other individual. I have no interest in populist gestures just for the sake of it. Maybe I don't give a toss about your ramblings on blasphemy and Noonan. But I would never write I don't give a toss on a ballot paper.

YFlyer

President will have to be older and taller than me before I take orders from him.

dxhound2005

YFlyer wrote: »

President will have to be older and taller than me before I take orders from him.

Or her.

YFlyer

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Or her.

yeah she'll beat me up otherwise.

Eugene Norman

YES

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Your are just one voter. So am I. Your agenda doesn't hold any more weight than that of any other individual. I have no interest in populist gestures just for the sake of it. Maybe I don't give a toss about your ramblings on blasphemy and Noonan. But I would never write I don't give a toss on a ballot paper.

I didn't say that my opinion holds more weight. I believe that most people don't care about this constitutional reform, as is clear from this thread, and I was mocking the cabinet for including this non-issue when better reforms could have been added to what are rare occasions for people to vote on the constitution.

Spoiling a ballot paper is a legitimate form of voting as it happens.

LeinsterDub

YFlyer wrote: »

President will have to be older and taller than me before I take orders from him.

The President is barely able to order a pizza constitutionally speaking let alone order any one around.

LeinsterDub

Mícheál Collins wouldn't have been eligible to stand for president when he died under the current constitution.

Now whatever you think of the man, his politics and actions I think he did enough in his 31 years that he or others like him could present themselves to the people.

Avada

Even though it means I can't become supreme overlord for another 10 years, I'll be voting against the change.

Also, Moar polls needed!

wretcheddomain

An upper age limit of 65 should also apply.

timetogo

I think 21 is too young for somebody to be president but it's not a vote to say the president has to be 21. I'd prefer to have the option of somebody excellent not being excluded just because they were under 35.

If 21 is too young and the young candidates are immature I'd hope the electorate just wouldn't vote for them.

Galwayguy35

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Mícheál Collins wouldn't have been eligible to stand for president when he died under the current constitution.

Now whatever you think of the man, his politics and actions I think he did enough in his 31 years that he or others like him could present themselves to the people.

If only we had a Taoiseach or President that was half the man Collins was they would indeed be a great leader.