The Age of Presidential Candidates Referendum

C.K Dexter Haven

Thanks OP for opening a thread on this.

What would people here think if the age of "30" was selected in this referendum instead of "21"- I think it would have got through without much debate and it would have made a lot more sense. I couldn't see many making a solid case against age 30 or over.

expectationlost

waraf wrote: »

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 :-)

it came about because we voted for it to come about in 2011 election

silly

expectationlost

Danny112211 wrote: »

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.

many would say politics isn't real world experience and that where most of our presidents have spent most of their time, academic or tiny media world llike mary mcaleese

Danny112211

I agree with the points you have made. This reinforces my original point. Asking people to seriously consider lowering the age limit to 21 is beyond belief.

Does anybody know who the bright spark is who thought this refer- dim question up? I see so many pressing issues worthy of attention in Ireland today, especially not this one!

In any case, let's not get into an intellectual argument over it. It's just my opinion that its a dim question to put to referendum, particularly as the outcome is a foregone conclusion, why do it?

I'm actually quite curious now to know who brought this up and got it off the ground. It anybody knows, please do tell.

Regards to all

Daniel

languagenerd wrote: »

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.

expectationlost

Danny112211 wrote: »

I agree with the points you have made. This reinforces my original point. Asking people to seriously consider lowering the age limit to 21 is beyond belief.

Does anybody know who the bright spark is who thought this refer- dim question up? I see so many pressing issues worthy of attention in Ireland today, especially not this one!

In any case, let's not get into an intellectual argument over it. It's just my opinion that its a dim question to put to referendum, particularly as the outcome is a foregone conclusion, why do it?

I'm actually quite curious now to know who brought this up and got it off the ground. It anybody knows, please do tell.

Regards to all

Daniel

all parties had a constitutional convention in their manifesto, the gov set one up they discussed it, the details are here ... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93959950&postcount=241 .... then the cabinet chose it out of the 18 suggestions from the constitutional convention because it was the one with the least associated work for the department

parkerpen

I can hardly believe that the Referendum on the proposed lowering of age for eligibility for office of president from 35 to 21 is getting such little publicity. Personally I am not in favour and am surprised that it is being put forward.

languagenerd

expectationlost wrote: »

all parties had a constitutional convention in their manifesto, the gov set one up they discussed it, the details are here ... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93959950&postcount=241 .... then the cabinet chose it out of the 18 suggestions from the constitutional convention because it was the one with the least associated work for the department

I'd say they didn't want to put another controversial one with the marriage one as well, to be fair. But yeah, this one would require minimal changes if it was passed.

We're going to see a lot more referendums that seem "pointless" in the next few years based on the Convention's recommendations, things like removing the "woman in the home" clause, lowering voting age to 16, allowing emigrants some voting rights etc. It's the only way to update the Constitution though (it can't be changed without a referendum) and it really needs to be dragged away from 1937 at this stage.

expectationlost

interesting point made on moring ireland http://t.co/3HEYXUZiux that the parties an if there are no challengers who get through the nomination process agree to appoint a person without an election, which they did atleast once after the death of president http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election,_1974 and atleast 3 times to re-appoint a sitting president, so theoretically they could appoint a 21 president.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

expectationlost

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Louis Walsh is childrens entertainers manager what has that got to with the president?

BoJack Horseman

expectationlost wrote: »

Louis Walsh is childrens entertainers manager what has that got to with the president?

You know.....

Reasons!

Who needs rationality.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It is a slippery slope. First lower the age, then lower the nomination requirements. Then we can have xfactor style elections.

What's an "xfactor style election" ?
And what is it about a 34 year old seeking the office that horrifies you so?

C'mon folks.... I'd like to see a rational reason for age discrimination.... Not hysterical hyperbolae.

oscarBravo

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll see your slippery slope, and raise you an appalling vista: first lower the age, then allow goats and pigs to be nominated. Clearly, this referendum is all about farmyard animals for president.

It's a disgrace, I tells ya!

An Ciarraioch

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What's an "xfactor style election" ?
And what is it about a 34 year old seeking the office that horrifies you so?

C'mon folks.... I'd like to see a rational reason for age discrimination.... Not hysterical hyperbolae.

One would be that a potential candidate should have a sufficient level of competence involving education and work experience required for the role of President. After all, one of the main roles of a President is to adjudicate on the constitutionality of Oireachtas legislation, and a 35-year old would be in a better position to assess that than a 21-year old, given that most people of that age would still be in the process of finishing their education.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

eagle eye

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What's an "xfactor style election" ?
And what is it about a 34 year old seeking the office that horrifies you so?

C'mon folks.... I'd like to see a rational reason for age discrimination.... Not hysterical hyperbolae.

Why do you keep focusing on 34 year olds when the people that are going to vote against this are looking at the young end of it.

It's the 21 year olds that people have a problem with. As I said in response to you earlier in this thread, if the proposal was to change it to 30 and upwards then this referendum would have a huge majority in favour of it, I personally think it would fly through if it were 26 and over but below that age is too young for a lot of people.

matrim

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

One would be that a potential candidate should have a sufficient level of competence involving education and work experience required for the role of President. After all, one of the main roles of a President is to adjudicate on the constitutionality of Oireachtas legislation, and a 35-year old would be in a better position to assess that than a 21-year old, given that most people of that age would still be in the process of finishing their education.

Wouldn't this depends on the person. The literacy rate for people between 55 - 65 is lower than for 25 - 35, so an illiterate 55 year old would be less able to judge the constitutionality of legislation. If you want to have it based on skills, education or experience why not specify that (in legalisation) instead if some arbitrary age of 35 in the constitution.

languagenerd

eagle eye wrote: »

Why do you keep focusing on 34 year olds when the people that are going to vote against this are looking at the young end of it.

It's the 21 year olds that people have a problem with. As I said in response to you earlier in this thread, if the proposal was to change it to 30 and upwards then this referendum would have a huge majority in favour of it, I personally think it would fly through if it were 26 and over but below that age is too young for a lot of people.

But as we said earlier, even if it passed, we're almost definitely not going to have a 21-year-old president - it brings it in line with all other elections in this country and no 21-year-old has been elected to the Dail since 1987. The main point of this is to remove the age-limit of 35 rather than to introduce a limit of 21. 21 was picked because that's the age for all other elections.

Age doesn't always mean more political experience either. You could have a 25-year-old who's been involved in politics for 10 years and did a degree in International Relations, and a 55-year-old who was long-term unemployed and never really engaged in politics at all (obviously, that can be vice-versa too). So why have an age barrier at all? If it's experience-based, then only candidates who meet that criteria will go forward anyway. The same procedures that keep out the over-35s who aren't experienced enough would apply to the under-35s as well.

It might widen the pool of prospective candidates anyway, remember the abysmal choice we had last time?

Podge_irl

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

One would be that a potential candidate should have a sufficient level of competence involving education and work experience required for the role of President. After all, one of the main roles of a President is to adjudicate on the constitutionality of Oireachtas legislation, and a 35-year old would be in a better position to assess that than a 21-year old, given that most people of that age would still be in the process of finishing their education.

When judging a person's ability to adjudicate on the constitutionality of Oireachtas legislation, their age is about the last criteria I'd be looking at.

Podge_irl

I assume if people think that the presidential election will somehow devolve into an "X-Factor style" event then you obviously rate the Irish electorate to such a pathetically low degree that you undoubtedly would be in favour of removing elections altogether?

Disgruntled Badger

CramCycle wrote:

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.

This is a pointless exercise and shows a lack of respect to the electorate. Why not have taken the time and opportunity to put something meaningful in place, i. e. copper fasten that 18 is the year one comes of age as a full citizen. Hold any office, be the sole guardian or carer for children, vote, gamble, smoke, drink, be sent into conflict for the army etc etc

No thought put into it - so for now it's a no.

matrim

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

This is a pointless exercise and shows a lack of respect to the electorate. Why not have taken the time and opportunity to put something meaningful in place, i. e. copper fasten that 18 is the year one comes of age as a full citizen. Hold any office, be the sole guardian or carer for children, vote, gamble, smoke, drink, be sent into conflict for the army etc etc.

If they did something like that they would probably have to remove the ageist rules that social welfare use to pay under 25s less money.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

expectationlost

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the X-factor types Louis Walsh manages are childrens entertainers that are aimed at ~12 year old girls and younger, they can't vote, so again what has that got to do with presidential elections.

Disgruntled Badger

matrim wrote:

If they did something like that they would probably have to remove the ageist rules that social welfare use to pay under 25s less money.

Well in fairness no one under 25 should be unemployed. There are jobs out there if you look and can demonstrate you are willing to work hard. Ask any one of the 1000s of immigrants in employment right now. I just moved from a company looking to hire 12 new staff. Six months in any employment will make you employable to any prospective employer if you are suitably qualified or hard working.

languagenerd

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Well in fairness no one under 25 should be unemployed. There are jobs out there if you look and can demonstrate you are willing to work hard. Ask any one of the 1000s of immigrants in employment right now. I just moved from a company looking to hire 12 new staff. Six months in any employment will make you employable to any prospective employer if you are suitably qualified or hard working.

Irish youth unemployment is at 21% at the moment. It was 31% two years ago. And that doesn't take into account the 170,000 3rd-level students or anyone doing JobBridge or other internships, so in reality it's a lot higher. The under-25s left school at the height of the recession when there were no part-time or entry-level jobs going, so many of them have good degrees but little experience. No experience = no job = no experience, ad nauseum. Plus a lot of the entry-level jobs have been replaced by internships, which they can only do if they already have savings to sustain themselves for 6 months to a year. Anyway, that's a rant for another thread but it's really not as easy as you make it out to be.

Actually, younger political representation in general might be a good way to get the government to act on things that would benefit the youth here. We've already lost part of a generation in the last few years due to government policy treating people as children and expecting parents to support them til they're well into their twenties.

Phil Mitchell

The only thing I think it is relevant for is if we were involved in a nuclear war and were struggling to find a viable candidate over the age of 35.

If we found ourselves in an Armageddon situation and only the likes of the President and Taoseacht were protected it may be a problem to find somebody to legitimately take over the presidency.

After an Armageddon situation, you need to play by the rules or the legitimacy of the new world is under threat.

And yes, I am aware of how far fetched all of this sounds :pac:

expectationlost

the journal rang all politicians on both refs, http://www.thejournal.ie/presidential-age-referendum-2105324-May2015 for pres ref listed who said they are voting no, but not who voting yes (as distinguished between who didn't respond.)

marienbad

Voting yes , no brainer for me .