The Age of Presidential Candidates Referendum

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Spook_ie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you'll find that all senior member of the line of accession are likely to have been brought up with regard to Royal protocol, at least until the Fergie/Diana days

Though you would be correct in that if he never met Wallis he could have been King, but ( bringing us nicely back to constitutions ) was ( from http://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=edward8 )

He became King Edward VIII in January 1936 on the death of his father George V. In November 1936 a constitutional crisis arose when Edward wished to marry Mrs Wallis Simpson; it was felt that, as a she had already divorced her first husband and at the time Edward and Wallis had met she was still married to her second husband, she was pursuing the King because of his wealth and position and would be unacceptable as queen. On 11 December Edward abdicated and left for France, where the couple were married in 1937. He was succeeded by his brother Albert as George VI.

Danny112211

I just returned to these shores and was pleased to see the progressive referendum on Gay marriage etc, however, voting on reducing the age to 21 for the presidency is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in years. 35 is on the low side! What does a 21 year old know about the world and life? In my opinion, one should have both real life/working experience and have achieved something of substance before being ready to represent any country as President. I am not saying that one can't be very intelligent at 21, it's not a question of intellect, it's a question of experience in the real world!

I predict that it wil be an emphatic No! However, it should never have been proposed and it's beyond beleif that people here are being asked to vote on it.

Incidentally, a more subjective opinion that popped up that I happen to agree with....

People from the tiny media world here should be banned from entry into the presidency race, since familure faces in a narrow media monopoly don't qualify you for anything other then more of the same.

Daniel.

BoJack Horseman

Danny112211 wrote: »

it's a question of experience in the real world!

What experience is this?

And what age must this measurable "experience" be achieved by before you consider a citizen be eligible to run for presidency?

Once you have listed the quantifiables that comprise this required 'life experience', would you agree that if a citizen aged 40 or 50, who doesn't meet these "real world experience" metrics should also be barred from seeking this office?

allthedoyles

They should reduce the age at which you can become President , to maximum 65 yrs old .

Douglas Hyde was 78 , Eamon De-Valera was 76 , and Michael D was 70.

And I presume they keep their Dail/Ministerial pensions , plus old age pension .

Danny112211

Common sense has got to apply here, it's not a matter of splitting hairs over equality of access.

If you accept that age and experience go together then 3 years past "child status" is more than a little light for such an office.

Candidates of age 40+ will be judged on their ability and record, forget 21 year old kids Ridiculous!!

The result, will bare out what I am saying here.

Daniel.

BoJack Horseman

Danny112211 wrote: »

If you accept that age and experience go together then 3 years past "child status" is more than a little light for such an office.

Can you list the 'experience' required & would you make it a prerequisites also disbarring older people who lack that 'experience?

oscarBravo

Danny112211 wrote: »

Candidates of age 40+ will be judged on their ability and record...

...and candidates under 40 won't?

languagenerd

I think the point is that 35 is arbitrary - what does a 35-year-old have that a 33 or 34-year-old doesn't?

If it passes (which it won't because no-one seems to know about it), it'd still be very, very unlikely that a 21-year-old would ever be elected. 21-year-olds can run for the Dáil, for example, and there hasn't been a TD in their early 20s since the 1980s. The youngest TD at the moment is 28, and that's out of 166 elected.

It just means that they could run as a candidate if they got the right backing (20 TDs or the public petition), which is unlikely in itself.

That said, there are people who are very mature and responsible at 25 (a lot of multinational tech companies are founded and run by CEOs in their 20s) and others who I would never trust to be president even at 35 or 45 or 75. So why put an age barrier? A candidate will still have to go through the same selection criteria so they'll still have to have a decent amount of experience (although, looking at the bunch we had last time...) and an inexperienced or immature candidate won't get voted in anyway.

Lower age limit for candidates does not equal 21-year-old presidents from now on.