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

whiskeyman

Clearly all the talk is about the Marriage equality vote... but what about the other proposal?

There's been little to no talk about this one, and many people who I've spoken to aren't even aware of it!

There's no campaign for or against that I'm aware of.

It seems that the principal argument advanced was that 35 was too high an age of eligibility given the voting age is 18, and the age at which a person becomes eligible to become a TD or senator is 21.

So what way will you vote? Do you have a good argument either way? Or will you even bother to vote on this specific ballot paper?
Do you want the chances of some young whipper snapper being president of the country?

I initially was on a No vote for this one, but perhaps what's the harm if someone in their 20s was elected, as long as they're best fit for the job?
Jedward... it's over to you.

The Backwards Man

I'll do this in one of the boxes

√

The_Valeyard

I'm voting no on that one. I think we could end up with some sort of Jedward type competition for president.

GLaDOS

I agree with the principle of someone younger being eligible to be elected, though in practice I'm not sure I'd actually vote for them.

Kinda like the right for a man to have babies in The Life of Brian.

The Backwards Man

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I'm voting no on that one. I think we could end up with some sort of Jewdard type competition for president.

Aras In Their Eyes

jamesbere

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I'm voting no on that one. I think we could end up with some sort of Jewdard type competition for president.

I wouldn't like a retarded jew either

Riskymove

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I agree with the principle of someone younger being eligible to be elected, though in practice I'm not sure I'd actually vote for them.

yes this is my thinking too

I don't see it as a priority or know why the Govt decided to hold the referendum but they are and so I am voting yes

basically I don't see why there should be impediments if people want to run. It is up to them to get nominated and the electorate to vote for them.

Del.Monte

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.

For Forks Sake

Riskymove wrote: »

yes this is my thinking too

I don't see it as a priority or know why the Govt decided to hold the referendum but they are and so I am voting yes

Think it was a recommendation from the Constitutional Convention if remember right.

MRnotlob606

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I'm voting no on that one. I think we could end up with some sort of Jewdard type competition for president.

and I could equally vote yes because I don't want to have a president who is octogenarian.

jaja321

I wasn't sure about this one either, but I think I've decided to vote yes. Why can we have a member of the Dail who is aged 21 but not a President? By voting yes to this, it doesn't mean we will automatically have a 21 year old President either - they'll still have to get a nomination (which we know is already very difficult) and get elected - so I don't really see the issue.

The only doubt I had was if there was a constitutional crisis - but again this is something that a) is extremely rare and b) people would have to consider when electing them in the first place.

noway12345

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

fionny

I'm voting yes on this because I dont think age should be a barrier here... if the person is suitable then age shouldnt come in to it. The electorate can decide if the person is suitable rather then their age.

kylith

I'm leaning towards No on this one. The president is our representative on an international level and I would prefer that they be that bit older as they would, presumably, be expected to discuss policy and the like with foreign dignitaries and I think an older person with more experience would be better.

Basically, I can't stop thinking of some 21 year olds of my acquaintance and shuddering in horror at the thought of someone that naïve and idealistic representing us.

tHE vAGGABOND

Atari Jaguar

Podge_irl

kylith wrote: »

I'm leaning towards No on this one. The president is our representative on an international level and I would prefer that they be that bit older as they would, presumably, be expected to discuss policy and the like with foreign dignitaries and I think an older person with more experience would be better.

Basically, I can't stop thinking of some 21 year olds of my acquaintance and shuddering in horror at the thought of someone that naïve and idealistic representing us.

So don't vote for them.

There is no impediment to a 21 year old becoming Taoiseach which is an infinitely more important position.

The restriction is idiotic beyond measure.

Captain Chaos

Podge_irl wrote: »

So don't vote for them.

There is no impediment to a 21 year old becoming Taoiseach which is an infinitely more important position.

The restriction is idiotic beyond measure.

Our voting system does not work that way, it's majority so a 21yr old can still get in in theory.

This no vote can safe guard that not happening at all. If this vote passes they should just go and lower the voting age to 10 while they are at it. Sure go ahead and get married at that age too.

kylith

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is no impediment to a 21 year old becoming Taoiseach which is an infinitely more important position.

Is there not? I'm surprised by that.

noway12345

kylith wrote: »

I'm leaning towards No on this one. The president is our representative on an international level and I would prefer that they be that bit older as they would, presumably, be expected to discuss policy and the like with foreign dignitaries and I think an older person with more experience would be better.

Basically, I can't stop thinking of some 21 year olds of my acquaintance and shuddering in horror at the thought of someone that naïve and idealistic representing us.

Is it not against equality to deny one section of society equal rights?

Captain Chaos

noway12345 wrote: »

Is it not against equality to deny one section of society equal rights?

So, what about not being able to vote till you are 18, drive at 17 etc. Pay full fare once you are 16 and over. Same thing if you want to go down that road.

Where do you draw the line?

Neil3030

Yes for me. Couple of reasons in no specific order:

- I like that it alligns dail entry requirements with that of the Aras, and ultimately the electorate get final say in any candidate.

- it is no less agist to say older people should be prohibited for fear of cognitive decline, than it is to say younger people should be prohibited for fear of immaturity.

- everyone is caught up in the idea of a 21 year old president, but that's just the lower bound. Current legislation blocks potentially viable candidates in their early 30s.

- It removes gender specificity in the wording. "His 35th year of age" to "the age of 21". Small point but important for a lot of people.

- It removes ambiguity - technically your 35th year starts when you are 34.

fionny

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Our voting system does not work that way, it's majority so a 21yr old can still get in in theory.

This no vote can safe guard that not happening at all. If this vote passes they should just go and lower the voting age to 10 while they are at it. Sure go ahead and get married at that age too.

Jeebus thats a bit dramatic,

As you said its a majority so if the public feel the person is ill equipped then the electorate wont vote for them.

If the public DO feel they are equipped then they will vote for them and that is democracy doing its job. Age simply should not matter.

The fact that the government is filled with out of touch older politicians holds us back to a degree. We should have a mixture old and the new.

kylith

noway12345 wrote: »

Is it not against equality to deny one section of society equal rights?

There is nothing stopping them from running once they reach the required age.

Discrimination would be disallowing someone from running at all.

noway12345

Captain Chaos wrote: »

So, what about not being able to vote till you are 18, drive at 17 etc. Pay full fare once you are 16 and over. Same thing if you want to go down that road.

Where do you draw the line?

I'm making apoint to the yes voters in the SSM referendum.

noway12345

noway12345 wrote: »

Is it not against equality to deny one section of society equal rights?

Yes, the 18, 19 and 20 year olds who are being discriminated against by this new legislation.

18 is the age of majority in Ireland so why are we voting to discriminate against them?

noway12345

kylith wrote: »

There is nothing stopping them from running once they reach the required age.

Discrimination would be disallowing someone from running at all.

Why wont you just admit that you don't like young people?

Captain Chaos

fionny wrote: »

The fact that the government is filled with out of touch older politicians holds us back to a degree. We should have a mixture old and the new.

Very true but 21 is too young for that position imo, even though it's only a figure head of state they still sign off on important laws. I still think 35 is fine as the low limit. Drop it to 30 at a push but no more.

Podge_irl

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Our voting system does not work that way, it's majority so a 21yr old can still get in in theory.

Yes, they can. If the majority of people vote for them. What exactly is wrong with that?

If this vote passes they should just go and lower the voting age to 10 while they are at it. Sure go ahead and get married at that age too.

That makes absolutely zero sense. 18 has been decided upon as the age that reflects the beginning of adulthood and the responsibilities and rights that brings. I find it daft you can't run for the Dail or presidency at 18 to be honest.

kylith

noway12345 wrote: »

I'm making apoint to the yes voters in the SSM referendum.

I'm against gay people under the legal age getting married too.

But I think that the Mods would like us to keep to the topic of the thread rather than dragging other thread topics into it. You're welcome to argue for reducing the age and I will certainly consider your points.

pwurple

As it's a choice between 21 and 35, it's a no from me. 30 would have been ok, or 28 maybe.. but 21 is too far.

Dustin the turkey for president anyone?

noway12345

kylith wrote: »

I'm against gay people under the legal age getting married too.

But I think that the Mods would like us to keep to the topic of the thread rather than dragging other thread topics into it. You're welcome to argue for reducing the age and I will certainly consider your points.

You just think young people are icky.

NewCorkLad

fionny wrote: »

Jeebus thats a bit dramatic,

As you said its a majority so if the public feel the person is ill equipped then the electorate wont vote for them.

If the public DO feel they are equipped then they will vote for them and that is democracy doing its job. Age simply should not matter.

The fact that the government is filled with out of touch older politicians holds us back to a degree. We should have a mixture old and the new.

We sent a puppet of a turkey to the eurovision, I will be voting no so there isnt the risk of some young popular idiot getting in.

Our government is different and a mix of young and old TD's would bring new idea's and energy, however the President is out there alone representing us as a country with no one to learn from or hide behind.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Podge_irl

NewCorkLad wrote: »

We sent a puppet of a turkey to the eurovision, I will be voting no so there isnt the risk of some young popular idiot getting in.

Our government is different and a mix of young and old TD's would bring new idea's and energy, however the President is out there alone representing us as a country with no one to learn from or hide behind.

But an old popular idiot is fine?

fionny

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't think university should come into it... As someone who has worked can often have an equal or better grasp on the world and its working versus someone just out of our out of date education system.

NewCorkLad

Podge_irl wrote: »

But an old popular idiot is fine?

An old idiot will have made plenty of mistakes that would come out and be questioned throughout any election.

El Weirdo

noway12345 wrote: »

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

I don't know. Are the no side's reasons for voting no, bigoted reasons?

The_Valeyard

jamesbere wrote: »

I wouldn't like a retarded jew either

cheers fixed that,

Note: I do not have any problems with Jews with special needs becoming President. Just as long as they are 35 or over.

noway12345

El Weirdo wrote: »

I don't know. Are the no side's reasons for voting no, bigoted reasons?

They're denying equal rights, I haven't heard one decent argument as to why anyone should vote no yet. It's clear the reason but they can't just come out and say that they hate young people.

jobbridge4life

kylith wrote: »

I'm leaning towards No on this one. The president is our representative on an international level and I would prefer that they be that bit older as they would, presumably, be expected to discuss policy and the like with foreign dignitaries and I think an older person with more experience would be better.

Basically, I can't stop thinking of some 21 year olds of my acquaintance and shuddering in horror at the thought of someone that naïve and idealistic representing us.

Voting yes doesn't mean we will ever have a 21 year old. It just means someone who is between 21 and 34 can now seek a nomination.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Podge_irl

NewCorkLad wrote: »

An old idiot will have made plenty of mistakes that would come out and be questioned throughout any election.

And a young idiot will be constantly questioned simply because of their age and will have to prove themselves fairly bloody impressive to have any chance.

Michael Collins would have been dead 3 years before being eligible to run for president...

Won't be voting on either

SEPT 23 1989

Most normal people don't want any responsibility under 30 never mind being the President of a country

kylith

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Voting yes doesn't mean we will ever have a 21 year old. It just means someone who is between 21 and 34 can now seek a nomination.

I understand that, but it also doesn't mean that an underprepared 21 year old won't be elected. It's difficult because I feel that 35 is too high an age limit, and I know that age is no guarantee of wisdom, but I also feel that 21 is too low an age limit.

I guess one of my main concerns would be that if a 21 year old ran they could be elected by their peers simply because they're 21, without them taking time to consider whether they actually would be the best person for the job. I know I may well be being unfair to a lot of 21 year olds here, but the ones that I know don't exactly inspire confidence in me.

As I said, I'm leaning towards no, but I'm still considering my position and will be up until the moment I step into the booth. I'm certainly open to hearing contrary opinions.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

draiochtanois

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Honestly.. I'm not too bothered by the results either way

I'll vote no. Its an important job which requires dignity and this comes with age and experience. If it was simply a matter of equality the proposal would be 18, the age of adulthood, but its not.

robman60

Neil3030 wrote: »

- It removes ambiguity - technically your 35th year starts when you are 34.

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.

Riskymove

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Our voting system does not work that way, it's majority so a 21yr old can still get in in theory.

This no vote can safe guard that not happening at all. If this vote passes they should just go and lower the voting age to 10 while they are at it. Sure go ahead and get married at that age too.

If a majority of voters want a 21 year old then that is what we should have

ohnonotgmail

noway12345 wrote: »

I'm making apoint to the yes voters in the SSM referendum.

and quite poorly too