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

thesimpsons

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

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

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

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

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

BoJack Horseman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

skooterblue2

shooterjay wrote: »

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

Dan Quale and President George W. Bush?

DEFTLEFTHAND

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

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

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

i think 35 should be the min age for pres

LoganRice

All hail Atari Jaguar

nxbyveromdwjpg

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

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

Tempest 2000. What a game.

Zaph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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