The Age of Presidential Candidates Referendum

CramCycle

No one really seems to be talking about this one, simply reducing the age down to 21 from 35 for the ability to run for president.

Haven't an opinion myself, the better presidents IMO have been the younger ones but all have been above the age by at least 10 years.

What is the thinking or reasoning behind this? I don't think it will make a difference either way to future presidents as I can't see someone under that age getting enough support although I would love to be proven wrong with a good candidate.

seamus

I guess if it was to be framed simply, it's a question of "presidential equality".

I imagine the reasoning behind the restriction originally was the idea that president was a ceremonial position reserved for older statesmen and politicians who had served their time in the Dáil, but would still want to keep their toe in the political sphere, and of course have a nice comfy retirement shaking hands with world leaders.

Much of our constitution was also lifted directly from the US constitution - seen as a model of Republicanism by DeValera. The US constitution likewise stipulates a minimum age of 35.

As you point out, there's not really any solid logical basis behind this. You're as likely to have a good candidate under 35 as a dud candidate over 35. The constitution was drafted in an era where "isms" didn't even exist (despite Art. 40 stating that all citizens are equal), and as such is peppered with these anachronisms in relation to ageism, sexism, religious discrimination, etc.

It's not the most important reform to be put to the country, but seeing as we have it in front of us now, we should take the opportunity to remove it. We'll likely never see a candidate under 35 in our lifetime, but if we want to consider ourselves a country of freedom and equality it just makes sense to take this stuff out of our constitution.

CramCycle

Pretty much my thinking on it, I do wonder though, no political part y has voiced an opinion on it and I can see alot of people voting no on the basis that they deem people under a certain age to immature or lacking in experience.

IS there a will by any party to see it passed or rejected?

johnnyskeleton

CramCycle wrote: »

What is the thinking or reasoning behind this?

Well, we really need to have a referendum on abortion, which is divisive; preventing governments from agreeing to blanket indemify the banks again or other reckless legislation, which would reduce the government's power; and on reforming the Seanad, which is complicated and requires serious thought and organisation.

So the government really grasped the nettle by picking a topic that is of little controversy or interest to many.

They can't lose. If this referendum passes then it makes no difference to them (FG/Lab are unlikely to field an U21 candidate for president anyway) and if it loses they can say "oh well, the people have spoken and we listen to you, look how democratic we are".

To be fair to them, they also picked another issue which is important and divisive and is discussed in other threads, but I suspect that when they decided to table that issue it also seemed like something that would pass with the minimum of fuss.

Then once we have voted, whatever happens, the little Irish flags are distributed and we can all feel happy that we have participated in democracy.

johnnyskeleton

CramCycle wrote: »

Pretty much my thinking on it, I do wonder though, no political part y has voiced an opinion on it and I can see alot of people voting no on the basis that they deem people under a certain age to immature or lacking in experience.

IS there a will by any party to see it passed or rejected?

I'm voting no to this one because the default is to keep the constitution the same and I haven't heard any good reasons for this one to be passed beyond the purely theoretical.

I think it is irrelevant and I suspect a lot of people will vote no to give the goverment a bit of a slap, which in fairness they well deserve. Why couldn't they vote to remove the reference to blasphemy law or the religious oath / preamble / special place of the catholic church provisions instead?

CramCycle

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

but I suspect that when they decided to table that issue it also seemed like something that would pass with the minimum of fuss.

It certainly will be with the minimum of fuss but I would be surprised if it passed but that said, my opinion on the other referendum is that we may see the largest turn out of young voters for a long time so maybe it will pass because there is a larger group who can relate to it.

Its one of those things that make s no difference to me.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think it is irrelevant and I suspect a lot of people will vote no to give the goverment a bit of a slap, which in fairness they well deserve. Why couldn't they vote to remove the reference to blasphemy law or the religious oath / preamble / special place of the catholic church provisions instead?

Not really giving them a slap if they aren't campaigning for it, I am voting yes as I don't see the point in the restriction but it never would have bothered me if no one had brought it up.

I do agree with your last statement, at least to me, there are far more important referendums of which there is far more interest than this one.

seamus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why couldn't they vote to remove the reference to blasphemy law or the religious oath / preamble / special place of the catholic church provisions instead?

I always hate this line of thinking when it comes to referendums. "I think there are more important things to deal with, so I'm going to reject this one, which may never come up again in my lifetime".

Ultimately if you're not interested in an amendment, then abstain. Otherwise vote for or against the amendment on its merits, and not based on the government who proposed it or its importance in your own personal pecking order.

I agree entirely that this one got tabled just so that they could say they proposed another amendment and they don't have to even bother campaigning or discussing it, it's so unimportant to the majority.

However, it's here right now in front of us, and I believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not give it appropriate attention. Instead we should accept or reject it based on its own merit.

oscarBravo

seamus wrote: »

I always hate this line of thinking when it comes to referendums. "I think there are more important things to deal with, so I'm going to reject this one, which may never come up again in my lifetime".

Ultimately if you're not interested in an amendment, then abstain. Otherwise vote for or against the amendment on its merits, and not based on the government who proposed it or its importance in your own personal pecking order.

I agree entirely that this one got tabled just so that they could say they proposed another amendment and they don't have to even bother campaigning or discussing it, it's so unimportant to the majority.

However, it's here right now in front of us, and I believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not give it appropriate attention. Instead we should accept or reject it based on its own merit.

One of those posts I wish I could thank twice.

johnnyskeleton

CramCycle wrote: »

Not really giving them a slap if they aren't campaigning for it, I am voting yes as I don't see the point in the restriction but it never would have bothered me if no one had brought it up.

If they campaign and it doesnt pass they will seem unpopular and out of touch. If they dont campaign they will seem incompetent unpopular and out of touch.

Im afraid theres no room to bury your head in the sand when it comes to a referendum - no one wants a rudderless ship.

Could FG/Lab be on course to lose more referenda than any other government or the most in any 5 year dail sitting? FF/PDs lost two on arbortion and europe. FG/Lab lost one on the seanad and oireachtas inquiries. i cant help but feel they are makig a bit of a mess of it.

The absence of any campaigning is really shambolic!

CramCycle

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If they campaign and it doesnt pass they will seem unpopular and out of touch. If they dont campaign they will seem incompetent unpopular and out of touch.

From my general conversations (not a poll) a reasonable number of people are unaware that the age referendum is even on. At this point I would not be surprised if they forgot to count the votes on it.

Im afraid theres no room to bury your head in the sand when it comes to a referendum - no one wants a rudderless ship.

Maybe, no matter what happens, someone will grab it. If it passes, FG/Lab, we won on this (but you didn't do anything), if they lose, any other party will grab it and ask why they had it there in the first place, clearly out of touch etc. etc.

The absence of any campaigning is really shambolic!

+1 I am not expecting the level for the other referendum but it is still a change to the constitution, I would have thought even a bit of lip service.

NIMAN

I can just imagine this country having a 21yr old President !

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

I always hate this line of thinking when it comes to referendums. "I think there are more important things to deal with, so I'm going to reject this one, which may never come up again in my lifetime".

Ultimately if you're not interested in an amendment, then abstain. Otherwise vote for or against the amendment on its merits, and not based on the government who proposed it or its importance in your own personal pecking order.

I agree entirely that this one got tabled just so that they could say they proposed another amendment and they don't have to even bother campaigning or discussing it, it's so unimportant to the majority.

However, it's here right now in front of us, and I believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not give it appropriate attention. Instead we should accept or reject it based on its own merit.

Here's what I actually said in relation to why I'm voting no:

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I'm voting no to this one because the default is to keep the constitution the same and I haven't heard any good reasons for this one to be passed beyond the purely theoretical.

I can expand on this if you wish, but you haven't actually suggested any reasons to vote yes.

But on your point more generally, surely we are entitled to voice our dissatisfaction that a referendum is being held on an irrelevant topic? I mean, these things cost money and while two referenda being held at once saves money and there is little campaigning on this one, there is still some money being spent on it and that is a waste of resources. It is also a waste that they couldn't have used the opportunity to vote on something meaningful.

To extend your logic, the government could avoid any difficult issue like Irish Water, Abortion etc in a panel discussion by saying "we're here to discuss the Fermoy bypass and we can't talk about any of those other issues".

FG have rightly been criticised for bringing up soft referendum issues when in government to make us all feel warm and cozy in the knowledge that they care so much about social change that they will allow us to vote every other year on popular issues while avoiding the bigger, more difficult ones. I don't agree with their policy of doing so.

I also disagree that the suggestion that there is a pecking order is irrelevant. This referendum arises from the constitutional convention, which was a big politicial issue in the last election for Labour. They made decisions on about 10 different things and the minimum age for the president was one of those issues. The government got to choose which of those issues to put to referendum and they chose, in my view, the least important.

oscarBravo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I can expand on this if you wish, but you haven't actually suggested any reasons to vote yes.

The current policy is ageist. The proposed amendment will mostly fix this.

But on your point more generally, surely we are entitled to voice our dissatisfaction that a referendum is being held on an irrelevant topic?

Voting against the proposal isn't voicing anything at all except the view that you don't want anyone under 35 to be president.

Sending a message is a useful thing to do, once (a) you're confident that the message will be received and understood by the intended recipient, and (b) there are no side effects of doing so.

As far as (a) goes, if you're unhappy that more important things aren't being put to referendum, write to your TDs. As for (b), voting against the proposal will continue to exclude a significant portion of the population from eligibility for election to an important public office. If that's what you want, fine: but it seems that you've decided that it's merely an acceptable price to pay in order to send a message that will be neither received nor understood, which is a position I can't agree with.

seamus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Here's what I actually said in relation to why I'm voting no:

My apologies, I did actually take your statement as a springboard to rant a little, knowing full well that you were musing rather than stating your reason for voting no.

I can expand on this if you wish, but you haven't actually suggested any reasons to vote yes.

Well because it's an ageist policy devoid of reason or logic, codified in the primary document of our state. 35 is an arbitrary age to choose as a cut-off without any justification.

One could argue that 18, too is arbitrary, but there is at least some level of justification in that a line must be drawn somewhere between childhood and adulthood.

As the constitution endeavours (though fails, continually) to consider all citizens "be held equal before the law", it seems somewhat contradictory to then decide that persons under 35 are not fit to run for President, without any reasoning.

But on your point more generally, surely we are entitled to voice our dissatisfaction that a referendum is being held on an irrelevant topic? I mean, these things cost money and while two referenda being held at once saves money and there is little campaigning on this one, there is still some money being spent on it and that is a waste of resources. It is also a waste that they couldn't have used the opportunity to vote on something meaningful.

Yep, there are plenty of fora to do that. Letters to the Editor, local & general elections. Rejecting an amendment because you disagree with the government is somewhat cutting your nose off to spite your face. Even if one honestly rejects the amendment because you don't approve of it, you've at least exercised your right to decide on the future of the constitution.
Rejecting it in protest is devaluing your own right in an attempt to annoy someone unaffected by it.

To extend your logic, the government could avoid any difficult issue like Irish Water, Abortion etc in a panel discussion by saying "we're here to discuss the Fermoy bypass and we can't talk about any of those other issues".

It happens all the time, especially in the Dail. It has to, otherwise you'd never get anything done.

FG have rightly been criticised for bringing up soft referendum issues when in government to make us all feel warm and cozy in the knowledge that they care so much about social change that they will allow us to vote every other year on popular issues while avoiding the bigger, more difficult ones. I don't agree with their policy of doing so.

I also disagree that the suggestion that there is a pecking order is irrelevant. This referendum arises from the constitutional convention, which was a big politicial issue in the last election for Labour. They made decisions on about 10 different things and the minimum age for the president was one of those issues. The government got to choose which of those issues to put to referendum and they chose, in my view, the least important.

And this is all perfectly valid and relevant. In an election, not in a referendum.

expectationlost

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm voting no to this one because the default is to keep the constitution the same and I haven't heard any good reasons for this one to be passed beyond the purely theoretical.

is age equality vs age discrimination theoretical?

I think it is irrelevant and I suspect a lot of people will vote no to give the goverment a bit of a slap, which in fairness they well deserve. Why couldn't they vote to remove the reference to blasphemy law or the religious oath / preamble / special place of the catholic church provisions instead?

good question not a reason to vote no.

expectationlost

NIMAN wrote: »

I can just imagine this country having a 21yr old President !

could you imagine a 34 year old president?

previous thread on this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95319114 so I don't repeat myself too much

expectationlost

CramCycle wrote: »

Pretty much my thinking on it, I do wonder though, no political part y has voiced an opinion on it and I can see alot of people voting no on the basis that they deem people under a certain age to immature or lacking in experience.

IS there a will by any party to see it passed or rejected?

FG are in favour and Noonan and Kelly spoke in favour yesterday, Labour are taking no position, but referendums are different and strict enforcement of party line is not always applied.

mayoman3

I definitely have an opinion on this one! I can't see any convincing reason to lower the age of a potential president but I can see a couple of reasons to keep it at 35.

1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

2. I know that I personally matured a lot in my late twenties/early thirties. 35 is a decent age to be afforded the right to run for president. Even if there was an outstanding 28 year old who would fit the position, I'm sure that person and the country as a whole could wait a further term to see them elected!

Don't mean to be a party pooper but it's a hell no from me!

expectationlost

mayoman3 wrote: »

I definitely have an opinion on this one! I can't see any convincing reason to lower the age of a potential president but I can see a couple of reasons to keep it at 35.

1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

they can change the law at any time to limit that pension till their of retirement age, not a reason to say no to this referendum amending the constitution.

2. I know that I personally matured a lot in my late twenties/early thirties. 35 is a decent age to be afforded the right to run for president. Even if there was an outstanding 28 year old who would fit the position, I'm sure that person and the country as a whole could wait a further term to see them elected!

do you think the country should be prevented from electing TDs (potential cabinet ministers) under 35?

sunshine and showers

I know that this referendum is almost certainly going to lose by a large majority, but I'm voting yes to it. Personally, I think that the age to run for President and T.D. should be lowered to 18. This is for the simple reason that I feel one should either acquire all of their adult rights (under the Constitution or legislation) at the age of majority. You either reach the age of majority and become a fully equal adult (in terms of age), or you don't. So one should then, logically, have all of their political rights age 18.

That's not to say that I would vote for someone who is 18 to be the President or my T.D. - it just doesn't make sense to me to have different age limits for voting and running for office!

Royal Legend

NIMAN wrote: »

I can just imagine this country having a 21yr old President !

I can imagine this country having a 21" tall president :rolleyes:

Royal Legend

expectationlost wrote: »

they can change the law at any time to limit that pension till their of retirement age, not a reason to say no to this referendum amending the constitution.


do you think the country should be prevented from electing TDs (potential cabinet ministers) under 35?

most definitely YES, especially when the likes of this one was elected in Waterford. http://www.labour.ie/ciaraconway/

Its fair to say she will now get a TD pension and she is not even 35 yet, but she will never be elected as a TD again in Waterford.

expectationlost

Royal Legend wrote: »

[/B]

most definitely YES, especially when the likes of this one was elected in Waterford. http://www.labour.ie/ciaraconway/

Its fair to say she will now get a TD pension and she is not even 35 yet, but she will never be elected as a TD again in Waterford.

do TDs get their pension payments immediately like presidents and ministers currently do?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

sunshine and showers

Fred Swanson wrote: »

In many respects the state treats persons over 18 and under 25 as children.

I appreciate that. I'd just rather that such age discrimination wasn't enshrined in the Constitution so that it could be easily done away with by legislation.

gormdubhgorm

I think if this referendum passed the dynastic families in the dail would be getting their son/daughter to run for President. This would give them practice before they become councillors/members of the seanad and then the rail itself!

SF12

I'm voting no on this one. As someone else said, it' a maturity thing - most people are not the same person in their early 20s as they are in their 30s.

The other reason is related to that - the president is "ornamental" but they do sign things into law. I'd be a bit concerned that you might have someone in their early 20s as president, being asked to sign something controversial into law that they are all fired up against due to family opinion/lack of understanding/general lack of world (or life) experience, and they would refuse to do it, to the detriment of the country.

I understand that not every piece of legislation keeps everyone happy, but sometimes things require seeing the bigger picture, and I'm not convinced that you have that ability in your early 20s. On top of that, yes, there is the pension and all that other stuff.

As for the other part to the referendum - I am utterly fed up listening to it/hearing about it, can we just get it over with.....

CramCycle

SF12 wrote: »

I'm voting no on this one. As someone else said, it' a maturity thing - most people are not the same person in their early 20s as they are in their 30s.

At what point though, I know several people over the age of 35 who would not be capable in terms of maturity of being president, there are many under 35 who could potentially be.

The other reason is related to that - the president is "ornamental" but they do sign things into law. I'd be a bit concerned that you might have someone in their early 20s as president, being asked to sign something controversial into law that they are all fired up against due to family opinion/lack of understanding/general lack of world (or life) experience, and they would refuse to do it, to the detriment of the country.

This is a bit vague to me, my understanding is that they are required to sign it into law or get a supreme court decision on its constitutionality and then go on that or else risk being impeached (or whatever it is we do when the president is not fit for purpose). Referring an act to the supreme court is thought of as foolish if the president does not agree with it as if the court find it is within the rules of the constitution it then becomes protected from challenge in the future (some may be able to clarify my understanding) or wise if they know it will pass but they don't want it to be challenged relentlessly by opposition.

I understand that not every piece of legislation keeps everyone happy, but sometimes things require seeing the bigger picture, and I'm not convinced that you have that ability in your early 20s. On top of that, yes, there is the pension and all that other stuff.

Some do, some don't , surely that would be a choice for the electorate to decide. Certainly the people have no one else to blame if the person elected is to immature. There were candidates the last time who were in with a chance that I felt were not mature enough.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

Well because it's an ageist policy devoid of reason or logic, codified in the primary document of our state. 35 is an arbitrary age to choose as a cut-off without any justification.

One could argue that 18, too is arbitrary, but there is at least some level of justification in that a line must be drawn somewhere between childhood and adulthood.

Is it an ageist policy devoid of reason or logic? The role of the President is to be the head of state exercising important political functions but without significant input into the political process or representative democracy. There are limits such as the way in which presidential candidates must be nominated which arguably are more restrictive than the age. But again it is the nature of the role of president that it be somewhat restricted.

As regards age, people will not be below 34* forever and that is an important point. If it excluded certain races or genders that would be a serious problem but it doesn't. Moreover, age discrimination is wrong where it is disproportionate. But there is a long line of polticial thought going back to Plato's republic that the elder persons in the State should rule.

Don't forget as well that while you have to be in your 35th year to run for president, you can vote for president from the age of 18.

I am not aware that there have been any candidates under the age of 34 that are interested in running for president. Moreover, it is a role more suitable to the end of a political career when you've already made your bones as a long standing TD, human rights lawyer or have some other noteworthy life experience to bring to the table.

In terms of the real seat of power, Dail Eireann, people can run for that at the age of 21. Arguably, just arguably, it might be more important to change that age to 18 rather than the presidential age being reduced from 35 to 21, but again there are reasonable limits to these things.

Ultimately, if there was a viable young presidential hopeful who cant qualify to run for president I would consider it seriously. But instead we are looking at the issue based on hypotheticals. As you say, why 21? Why not 18? Why not 5? 18 is the age of majority for most things, but there is nothing wrong with having different milestones for different aspects of life.

Anyone under 34 is probably too young in my opinion to run for president. Although you may think it is devoid of logic I think we ought to respect the constitution even if we don't agree with it and be cautious about changing it. I haven't seen any substantial reason for the change.

As the constitution endeavours (though fails, continually) to consider all citizens "be held equal before the law", it seems somewhat contradictory to then decide that persons under 35 are not fit to run for President, without any reasoning.

Again, the reason is because it is a role for someone who is mature. In the same way that people argue that reducing the age shows respect for our young people by saying that they can be president now if they wish, I think by keeping the age high shows that the role of president is a serious role for serious people and yes, at the risk of being glib about it, it is not for Jedwards and Donal Skehans. I don't think that people under 34 consider themselves to be second class citizens or anything of the kind because of this restriction.

On the equality issue, this seems to me like a kind of equality gone mad argument. We must ensure that we don't even give the perception of inequality at all costs, and that means making the role of President slightly more accessable to young people (because in reality I still don't see any mid-20s Presidents being nominated or elected).

Rejecting an amendment because you disagree with the government is somewhat cutting your nose off to spite your face. Even if one honestly rejects the amendment because you don't approve of it, you've at least exercised your right to decide on the future of the constitution.
Rejecting it in protest is devaluing your own right in an attempt to annoy someone unaffected by it.

No and again you are missing the point. I am not saying that I disagree with the government in general. I disagree with the manner in which they are running this referendum.

There will have been 39 referenda on amending the constitution in the 77 year history of the State. 8 of those took place during the tenure of the current government's 4 years in power. Of the rest, 10 were mandated as part of the State's ratification of international treaties. 5 were on abortion. Have we seen dramatic root and branch Constitutional reform during this period? Has this zeal for amendment dealt with the most necessary and important changes or the difficult issues of the day? Or, have they been 8 relatively soft issues which were poorly debated and, where lost, disowned by the Government parties.

So it is not the government that I am criticial of. It's the manner in which they have held a disproportionately high number of referenda but, save the Marriage Equality referendum, they have all been on the less important issues. If their mandate for having so many referenda is the constitutional convention, then I would've thought that some of the other topics might have made for a better referendum than this.

Then we have the way in which they are sitting back a bit and not getting involved. Labour have refused to take a position on it. They voted the Act through the Oireachtas but when it comes to the popular vote they act as if they don't know where it came from.

*[/nerd]

mister gullible

Allow 21 year old candidates and a phone in vote I say.. and don't forget Dustin is 24 now.. he's nearly too old.
About time the government got a grip and tackled some of the real issues like presidential age.

expectationlost

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Again, the reason is because it is a role for someone who is mature. In the same way that people argue that reducing the age shows respect for our young people by saying that they can be president now if they wish, I think by keeping the age high shows that the role of president is a serious role for serious people and yes, at the risk of being glib about it, it is not for Jedwards and Donal Skehans.

Jedwards are popstars and Donal Skehans is a tv presenter I dont know what they have to do with this topic.

There will have been 39 referenda on amending the constitution in the 77 year history of the State. 8 of those took place during the tenure of the current government's 4 years in power. Of the rest, 10 were mandated as part of the State's ratification of international treaties. 5 were on abortion. Have we seen dramatic root and branch Constitutional reform during this period? Has this zeal for amendment dealt with the most necessary and important changes or the difficult issues of the day? Or, have they been 8 relatively soft issues which were poorly debated and, where lost, disowned by the Government parties.

So it is not the government that I am criticial of. It's the manner in which they have held a disproportionately high number of referenda but, save the Marriage Equality referendum, they have all been on the less important issues. If their mandate for having so many referenda is the constitutional convention, then I would've thought that some of the other topics might have made for a better referendum than this.

court of appeal wasn't important? childrens referendum wasn't important? fiscal treaty wasn't imporantant?

some sort constitutional convention and multiple referedums were in the 4 major party manifestos and in the programme for government,

Henlars67

mayoman3 wrote: »

I definitely have an opinion on this one! I can't see any convincing reason to lower the age of a potential president but I can see a couple of reasons to keep it at 35.

1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

2. I know that I personally matured a lot in my late twenties/early thirties. 35 is a decent age to be afforded the right to run for president. Even if there was an outstanding 28 year old who would fit the position, I'm sure that person and the country as a whole could wait a further term to see them elected!

Don't mean to be a party pooper but it's a hell no from me!

That's not a coherent argument against this amendment.

If you think 21 is too young to be president, then just don't vote for a 21 year old when the election comes around

Un Croissant

I find it very hard to care about this. I'll vote yes because it makes sense, but by God, I don't think anyone really cares.

eagle eye

Henlars67 wrote: »

That's not a coherent argument against this amendment.

If you think 21 is too young to be president, then just don't vote for a 21 year old when the election comes around

If you think 21 is too young then you vote against a change here and you don't ever have to worry about it again.

BoJack Horseman

eagle eye wrote: »

If you think 21 is too young then you vote against a change here and you don't ever have to worry about it again.

What is wrong with a 34 year old seeking the office?

eagle eye

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What is wrong with a 34 year old seeking the office?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. If they were looking to change it to 30 years old and upwards then I think it would have a huge majority in favour of it.

A lot of people will look at 21 years of age as the deciding factor for them and vote against it. From speaking to people I think the no vote will prevail in this referendum.

carveone

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Again, the reason is because it is a role for someone who is mature. In the same way that people argue that reducing the age shows respect for our young people by saying that they can be president now if they wish, I think by keeping the age high shows that the role of president is a serious role for serious people ...

I entirely agree. I wasn't really sure previously other than "what difference does it make" but, if nothing else, I feel the age setting does send the message that this is an important office. So why 35? Bearing in mind I suppose that 35 was a considerably higher proportion of ones life expectancy when the Constitution was drafted. IMHO the idea is that any candidates primary goal is service to the nation rather than wealth/career/status. And a person of this age would have a national reputation, maturity and wisdom.

35 is the same age limit imposed on the president of the US and this is likely where the number in our Constitution came from. Apparently that age was set not to keep untested candidates out of office but to prevent fathers from positioning their sons into office in a possible aristocracy (ha! bit of irony there!). On the other hand this age limit has never really been an issue as it's impossible to become President of the US in your thirties anyway. That might well be the case here too.

Perhaps in the US it's might otherwise be possible for popular actors to become President for the lolz but the Irish electorate has turned out to be pretty discerning in the last 30 years. I still think the limit is about the message not the age.

oscarBravo

carveone wrote: »

...the age setting does send the message that this is an important office.

The flaw in that reasoning is that implies that the office of (say) Taoiseach or Minister for Finance is unimportant.

Podge_irl

35 is a nonsensically arbitrary age at which to suddenly qualify to do anything. Both it and the Dail requirement should be brought down to 18.

Age is the only constitutional barrier to running for president, seeming to imply that it is the most important criteria to be fulfilled. Which seems bizarre to me.

marco_polo

I can't really understand why this seems to be in line for such a heavy defeat myself, the only argument I have even heard, not that I have debated it at any lenght, was someone muttering something about Jedward.

I think the odds of anyone under even 40-45 getting elected are extremely small (I personally can't really picture a scenario where I would vote for someone below that level of life experience) but thats no reason for me to stick with some random number plucked out of the air decades ago. Its not exactly unique to Ireland anyway so I won't lose any sleep over it, fairly confident the amount of future hypothetical presidents affected by a no vote would be zero in any case

johnnyskeleton

Podge_irl wrote: »

35 is a nonsensically arbitrary age at which to suddenly qualify to do anything. Both it and the Dail requirement should be brought down to 18.

An equally arbitrary figure one might say.

Age is the only constitutional barrier to running for president, seeming to imply that it is the most important criteria to be fulfilled. Which seems bizarre to me.

Being a citizen, being nominated in the prescribed form etc

CramCycle

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Being a citizen, being nominated in the prescribed form etc

While not beyond the realms of possibility, what are the chances of it passes that someone will get the required nominations if they are not mature enough, let alone get the votes if they get nominated.

While I am in favour of getting the pension after the run scrapped so that it only kicks in at 65 or so ( probably later if a young enough president is elected), this is a legal issue not a constitutional one as far as I know and one that should be addressed regardless of whether the change passes or not.

I think now I will vote yes, I think the risk of electing someone too immature is unlikely and if we did, we have no one to blame but ourselves. But there is a chance no matter how slim that the right person at the right time will be 34 or 33 etc. It's unlikely but it is possible.

languagenerd

Has there been any campaigning on this one at all? I think it'll be rejected simply because people haven't been talking about it at all. I think a lot of people will be handed the two ballot slips on the day and think "Wait, what's this other one again?" and tick No because they hadn't really considered it in any great detail beforehand.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cookie_Monster

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, one just has to look at the like of Facebook and other tech giants with very young CEOs to see that, in some cases, youth can easily handle such a role.

CramCycle

languagenerd wrote: »

Has there been any campaigning on this one at all? I think it'll be rejected simply because people haven't been talking about it at all. I think a lot of people will be handed the two ballot slips on the day and think "Wait, what's this other one again?" and tick No because they hadn't really considered it in any great detail beforehand.

That was my thinking about it when I posted first, the number of people who simply do not know that this is coming up. I have heard the odd brief mention, yesterday was the first refcom ad I heard mentioning it.

carveone

oscarBravo wrote: »

The flaw in that reasoning is that implies that the office of (say) Taoiseach or Minister for Finance is unimportant.

Well, possibly But one could argue that the methods of putting yourself forward for candidacy are different. A Taoiseach has fought his way to the top as leader of the party over many years. Queen Elizabeth was trained for the role from birth. On the surface it could appear that anyone could put themselves forward as a candidate - it could be a concern that the very appearance of populist pop-star type candidates or children of party members say would put the office into disrepute.

I'm not saying that would happen nor that dubious candidates are necessarily under 35; I also realise that greater than 20 TDs or 4 councils have to nominate said candidate so protections are already in place. And it's the right of the people to reject them anyway. I'm just putting forward possibilities as to why the age limit should remain as such - I myself am still on the fence on this issue

It has been argued in the US that the system is such that the age limit there is completely pointless. On the other hand the system is also set up such that removing the limit is also completely pointless. I'd argue the same is true here.

Podge_irl

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

An equally arbitrary figure one might say.

Definitely. But an age of majority is necessary and at least it would be consistent.

Tea 1000

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll bet she was a better queen at 35 than when she was 25 though!

waraf

Can anyone tell me how this referendum came about? I haven't heard a peep about it from the political classes and I've never heard anyone complain about this issue so I just wondering who pushed for a referendum on this issue.

I'm gonna vote no cause I'm old and dread the thought of the President being photographed hammered outside Coppers :-)

Spook_ie

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I'll bet she was a better queen at 35 than when she was 25 though!

Also add in the fact that she was brought up for the previous 25 years to be the Queen, given that if someone started their political career at 17 they would be ready at about 42