Presidential Age Referendum and political reform

micosoft

Almost ignored in the coverage at the moment is the extraordinary margin of 75% - 25% against lowering the age of presidential candidates. This was a trivial piece of reform that had little serious impact on the state. It was introduced by the constitutional convention so plenty of consultation. It was not forced on my any political party and no significant opposition.

I don't think it was the lack of a campaign for it as there was no campaign against it. It was as easy an amendment as you could ask for - nothing like an EU treaty.

It seems then that the Irish electorate were against radical reform (abolishing the Seanad which was a major reform) or conservative reform (not like it was likely we would get younger presidents). So is the idea of constitutional reform dead in Ireland? It raises a fair few questions as to how we can prevent the structural political reasons for the last crash recurring.

Jim2007

micosoft wrote: »

Almost ignored in the coverage at the moment is the extraordinary margin of 75% - 25% against lowering the age of presidential candidates. This was a trivial piece of reform that had little serious impact on the state.

Really??? I think not!

The President needs to be someone with maturity and experience and an 21 year old simply does not have that! Would an 21 year old Paddy Hillery have had sufficient maturity and since of purpose to instruct Capt. O. Barbour not to put Brian Lenihan's calls through to him on that famous night??? Would Peter Berry have consulted an 21 year old Eamonn DeValera on discovering the issues relating to the arms crisis???

The President's powers are limited, but crucial to our constitutional democracy and when called into action our best hope that they will act to defend the constitution is that they have maturity and real world experience to draw on and you just don't have that at 21 even 35 is a stretch!

BoJack Horseman

Jim2007 wrote: »

real world experience to draw on

Like what exactly?

And where in the constitution is that a prerequisite?

duffman13

Jim2007 wrote: »

Really??? I think not!

The President needs to be someone with maturity and experience and an 21 year old simply does not have that! Would an 21 year old Paddy Hillery have had sufficient maturity and since of purpose to instruct Capt. O. Barbour not to put Brian Lenihan's calls through to him on that famous night??? Would Peter Berry have consulted an 21 year old Eamonn DeValera on discovering the issues relating to the arms crisis???

The President's powers are limited, but crucial to our constitutional democracy and when called into action our best hope that they will act to defend the constitution is that they have maturity and real world experience to draw on and you just don't have that at 21 even 35 is a stretch!

Really? If your good enough you are old enough. I somewhat agree in that I can't see myself voting for a 21 year old but if that 21 year old does enough to get a nomination (which is difficult enough) then they may need some consideration.

Lowering the age causes no harm to anyone, a truly outstanding candidate would be needed to get elected and whether they are 22 or 44 they deserve the opportunity to run.

micosoft

Well no. The evidence is that does not happen in reality. You don't see 21 year old presidents of the US or 21 year old Taoiseach's. That said you (unintentionally) prove my point. If minor reform brings up such off the wall hyperbole such as your examples it simply does not seem possible we will get any serious reform through. If someone can seriously post that a 21 year old will become president because they can theoretically stand for election then you can argue against any political reform that require constitutional amendments.



For the absence of doubt. I don't think anyone under 35 should be president given their lack of experience. It's highly unlikely I'd vote for one and doubt 90% of the Irish Populace would or that they would get sufficient party support to be nominated. That's not the point of the OP. It's that people like Jim somehow translate it into an absolute certainty. This is a representation of how averse to political reform the Irish People are.

Geniass

micosoft wrote: »

So is the idea of constitutional reform dead in Ireland?

How can anyone ask this question on this of all days and expect to be taken seriously?!?

As for the Seanad reform referendum - that was clearly a protest vote.

johnnyskeleton

micosoft wrote: »

It seems then that the Irish electorate were against radical reform (abolishing the Seanad which was a major reform) or conservative reform (not like it was likely we would get younger presidents). So is the idea of constitutional reform dead in Ireland? It raises a fair few questions as to how we can prevent the structural political reasons for the last crash recurring.

Issues such as abortion, blasphemy laws, voting age, the size and constitution of the dail, the powers of the senate, the election of the senate, the powers of the president, free nominations for the president, fiscal restraints, direct democracy petitions, etc etc are all important issues that the public would be interested in.

The reasons they were against seanad abolition and reducing the presidential age were completely different. I dont think we can conclude from these two isolated no votes that people are against reform altogether. They just wanted to keep the seanad on the one hand and werent interested in reducing the presidential age on the other.

Plus recognising gay marriage is a pretty big deal and a radical change to the constitution.

josip

micosoft wrote: »

...
For the absence of doubt. I don't think anyone under 35 should be president given their lack of experience. It's highly unlikely I'd vote for one and doubt 90% of the Irish Populace would or that they would get sufficient party support to be nominated. That's not the point of the OP. It's that people like Jim somehow translate it into an absolute certainty. This is a representation of how averse to political reform the Irish People are.

So why 35? Why not 34 or 36? What's so special about 35? Was Dev in a good mood or bad mood when he chose it?
I would have thought that 18 would be the logical choice. It seems more consistent about being able to vote for a position you're also entitled to be elected to.

Bob24

josip wrote: »

So why 35? Why not 34 or 36? What's so special about 35? Was Dev in a good mood or bad mood when he choose it?
I would have thought that 18 would be the logical choice. It seems more consistent about being able to vote for a position you're also entitled to be elected to.

You could similarly ask why is the voting age is 18 and not 17 or 19?

The answer simply is that being wise enough to vote is not something that can be scientifically measured so we are taking our best guess as per when it will be achieved for most citizens. We could have picked 17 or 19 but we just didn't and we're fine with 18 - and one thing that is for sure is that we would never have picked 12 as it is clearly too young.

Answer for the president age is exactly the same logic except as a society we are deciding that 21 is obviously too young. Could be 34 or 36 but we don't really care - 35 is a good enough estimate.

Ludo

To me this is a very good result and shows democracy is worked VERY well. It shows people actually thought about the issue and decided no...this is wrong. With such a resounding Yes on the same sex marriage referendum you would almost assume the "young voters" would by default vote yes to this. But they don't seem to have judging by the massive rejection of this one.

I believe the difference between the 2 results only serves to re-affirm the judgement and thought of the people that went into them.

SPDUB

micosoft wrote: »

Well no. The evidence is that does not happen in reality. You don't see 21 year old presidents of the US or 21 year old Taoiseach's.

As far as I know there's no law actually stopping a 21 year Taoiseach it's just unlikely to ever happen

josip

But if we accept the logic that before 35 years of age one does not have the necessary qualities to be President, then it also holds that before the age of 35 one cannot recognise the qualities necessary for the Presidency, and hence those people should not be allowed vote.

johnnyskeleton

josip wrote: »

But if we accept the logic that before 35 years of age one does not have the necessary qualities to be President, then it also holds that before the age of 35 one cannot recognise the qualities necessary for the Presidency, and hence those people should not be allowed vote.

Thats a false analysis, kinda like saying only TDs can vote for TDs.

ctrl-alt-delete

I would prefer the age restriction matched the age for voting. 35 makes no sense as it is and as it will stay.

In this time of equal opportunities it would have been nice to remove the age restriction. Chances are nobody would ever be voted in anyways.

micosoft

SPDUB wrote: »

As far as I know there's no law actually stopping a 21 year Taoiseach it's just unlikely to ever happen

That was my point.

the groutch

major hypocrisy by the people of Ireland, equality for some, but not for others.

Bob24

the groutch wrote: »

major hypocrisy by the people of Ireland, equality for some, but not for others.

Depends weather you speak English or Newspeak.

The meaning of the word equality has been perverted in the last few months to make people believe it means everyone should be treated in the same way regardless of their circompstances. Whereas equality in front of the law actually means that all circumstances being equal, two individuals should be treated in the exact same way.

People will now be asking for anything in the name of equality. Who knows as a man I might be asking for a paternity leave as long as women get in maternity leave and question why I am not equal to women when it comes to becoming a parent.

nice_guy80

Bob24 wrote: »

Depends weather you speak English or Newspeak.

The meaning of the word equality has been perverted in the last few months to make people believe it means everyone should be treated in the same way regardless of their circompstances. Whereas equality in front of the law actually means that all circumstances being equal, two individuals should be treated in the exact same way.

People will now be asking for anything in the name of equality. Who knows as a man I might be asking for a paternity leave as long as women get in maternity leave and question why I am not equal to women when it comes to becoming a parent.

Oh, like in Sweden?
Great stuff for fathers.

Bob24

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Oh, like in Sweden?
Great stuff for fathers.

Absolutely, maybe it would be great - but it is a different question altogether and should be looked at as a matter of improving society rather than bringing more equality.

Point is it is not a matter of equality. I'll simply never go through what it is to carry a child and give birth, or see a human being which has developed inside my own body. So I'll never be strictly equal to women when it comes to having a child, meaning the law doesn't have to treat me in the same way in the name of equality (the legislator can of course still decide to give me the same parental leave, but it will be for a different reason - for example that society has evolved and it is new more common for fathers to take care of their newborn child).

Same as a 21 years old and a 35 years old. They are just at two different stages of their lives and not letting one become president is not unequal. What would be unequal would be to have some random representative of the State decide based on unclear criteria that one of them can become president at 21 and the other needs to wait until they are 35.

The Black Oil

I voted Yes on this. Figured that a not so great 21 year old would be found out during the campaign. What did they said in a recent Bond film? :pac: Age is no guarantee of efficiency. And youth is no guarantee of innovation.

Would have liked an opportunity to vote on cutting the term in the Park, though. 7 years is too long.

Eugene Norman

People just thought it was a trivial amendment. Given the fact that the president isn't likely to be younger than 35 they probably thought -- what's the point.

Btw since everybody ages age discrimination isn't the same as other forms. The fact that old people can get free travel discriminates against the young, but they too will age and get free travel unless we run out of money.

Also 35 was picked probably because it is the American presidential age. No real desire for change over there either.

JamJamJamJam

Voted yes:

- If someone can vote, can be tried for a crime as an adult, can join the army, or can become Taoiseach (most importantly), then I feel that same citizen should be entitled to stand for Presidential election. I do think we should have voted on lowering it all the way to 18, however.

- Plenty of wonderful people under 35, plenty of terrible people over 35. Age has fairly little correlation on a person's qualities.

- On experience: It is not as though people under 35 may have no experience *at all*. They may have far more important experience than many of the people who have stood for election in the past. Additionally, at the end of the day, experience isn't the only thing that makes someone worthy of becoming president. It can be an important factor, but my choice of candidate is a multifactorial decision.

- Obviously, if the opportunity were to be extended to adults under 35, we could still vote for the most appropriate candidate and not vote for anyone who we think is inappropriate.



Given that the youngest presidents we've had (Robinson and MacAleese) were both 46, it is unlikely we'd suddenly elect someone in their 20s. In fact, I think it would be very surprising if a very young person would have the funding or the confidence to win, etc. required run a campaign. So this result probably won't reeeally affect anyone. I just feel that it would do little harm, and potentially be beneficial in terms of the quality of the candidates. Additionally, I feel that if the vote of someone aged 25 (for instance) is worth the same as that of a 50 year old, then their validity for candidacy should be equal also. Since the role is such a ceremonial position, even if a young person *did* somehow manage to be elected, would there really be so much harm in that?

expectationlost

Patrick O'Donvan voted no on Presidential age to stop 'boyband members' getting elected http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/coalition-td-voted-no-on-presidential-age-to-stop-boyband-members-getting-elected-31247064.html

not even TDs treated it with proper consideration. POD thinks the nominating politicals and the public are idiots.

expectationlost

The Black Oil wrote: »

I voted Yes on this. Figured that a not so great 21 year old would be found out during the campaign. What did they said in a recent Bond film? :pac: Age is no guarantee of efficiency. And youth is no guarantee of innovation.

Would have liked an opportunity to vote on cutting the term in the Park, though. 7 years is too long.

the convention voted against reducing the term to 5 years but that doesn't lock gov of out of ever trying to change it.

expectationlost

micosoft wrote: »

Almost ignored in the coverage at the moment is the extraordinary margin of 75% - 25% against lowering the age of presidential candidates. This was a trivial piece of reform that had little serious impact on the state. It was introduced by the constitutional convention so plenty of consultation. It was not forced on my any political party and no significant opposition.

I don't think it was the lack of a campaign for it as there was no campaign against it. It was as easy an amendment as you could ask for - nothing like an EU treaty.

It seems then that the Irish electorate were against radical reform (abolishing the Seanad which was a major reform) or conservative reform (not like it was likely we would get younger presidents). So is the idea of constitutional reform dead in Ireland? It raises a fair few questions as to how we can prevent the structural political reasons for the last crash recurring.

how can you argue out an issue if those that proposed it won't debate it, its like playing handball against a hay bail, of course the lack of debate hurt.

i don't know if this will hurt the cause of having multiple referendums in the future, as was proposed by Fine Gael's / Enda Kenny's manifesto, or encrouage them to do themed multiple referendums where if there is more then one they are linked so you can discuss them at the same time.

expectationlost

Geniass wrote: »

How can anyone ask this question on this of all days and expect to be taken seriously?!?

As for the Seanad reform referendum - that was clearly a protest vote.

people don't trust the (whipped and centrally controlled) dail as it is currently forumulated that makes the seanad no vote well considered, and consistent with the rejection of the oireachtas inquiries.

there was a certain consistent distrust of the parties domination of the nomination process in this vote too, but I wouldn't consider the referendum well considered.

ShaShaBear

I gave this one a lot of thought and then voted no. I thought of myself at 21. Living independently with a good job, on top of my bills, in a stable relationship. I remember one personal incident destroyed the relationship, forcing me to move home, give up my job and ended up with depression as a result of the radical change. I was simply not mature enough to handle the stress, even though I was mature enough to handle things when they ran smoothly. I've come across quite a few 21 year olds after returning to college as a mature student that would have had the same kind of mental maturity - stable when stable.
While I don't doubt that a 21 year old would be able to run for president, and rally enough people to vote, and that they would have reforming ideas that could well in fact put this country on the right track, I do not believe they would be able to uphold their maturity in the face of extreme, unexpected stress.

jackofalltrades

As others have said, it's a bit hypocritical that on the same day some people are voting to remove inequality, they're also voting to maintain it.

If you have the opportunity to be a TD, Minister of Health/Justice/Finance or even the Taoiseach at 18.
Then you should also be able to put yourself forward to run for the Presidency.

You still have to be selected which as Senator David Norris showed is not easy.
You also have to be able to withstand months of campaigning, personality assassinations and a potentially hostile media.

If you can survive all of that and still come out on top of all the candidates, regardless of your age you deserve the job.

the groutch

expectationlost wrote: »

i don't know if this will hurt the cause of having multiple referendums in the future, as was proposed by Fine Gael's / Enda Kenny's manifesto, or encrouage them to do themed multiple referendums where if there is more then one they are linked so you can discuss them at the same time.

I think they will and should do multiple referendums again, but in future certain divisive referendums (like abortion) need to be held on their own.

Justin1982

On an equality basis, this referendum was not the stage at which the young people of Ireland should get shot down. They should be allowed to run if they want same as they are allowed to run for most other things before then getting shot down (most of the time) due to perceived inexperience. At least at that stage they don't make it for probable real reasons. No matter what situation any president is placed in, experience is probably the least important skill they need and it can often be a hurdle. Ability to make the right decision is the main skill for any person in a leadership role. And to argue that any of the Irish presidents so far were in any way skilled at anything of any real merit that couldn't be matched by a young person is fairly dubious. I'd suggest that most of the Irish presidents were complete failures apart from Mary Robinson. Just prudish old farts, pedaling forgettable speeches, shaking hands all day, having their pictures taken and talking ****. Maybe some of us want something that makes more of a positive impact on Ireland or the World. I'm in no doubt that Ireland could find someone (either young or old or male or female) that could really go out there and shake things up, be a small bit more controversial (as Mary Robsinson was almost), sit around on their arse a bit less reading the bible or poetry and actually speak up for those without a voice or who need help.

I can name a multitude of young people, who in their twenties, went out into the world and made a huge impact to our lives (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Yer man that started Facebook, Yer man that started Google). They made a huge impact on humanity coming straight out of college because they worked in areas where the environment was perfect and open to them taking the lead. In most other environments, the old boys club rules, not because they have any skill but because its a club, designed to focus power and wealth and influence on a select few, some of whom have ability, most of whom don't.

Electorate of Ireland is full of **** spinning the whole equality crap the last few weeks and then kicking this age amendment in the teeth.

I mean like, in the last presidential election, a guy who was nicknamed "the butcher of Belfast" was in with a real shout of becoming president (And I voted for him, in case anyone thinks I'm so small minded as to let his past rule him out) and for how many years was Dev president? A guy who played a huge (if not single handedly) drew Ireland into a civil war that cost how many lives and achieved nothing only death and destruction. A guy that played no small role in turning Ireland into the backward god fearing joke that it was between 1916 and the 1960's. To suggest that there is not a huge swath of the population aged 21-35 that couldn't get elected as president and walk into the office the first day with a more positive CV or a cleaner conscience or make a more positive impact on Ireland than those two is nuts.

bob50

A more signiicant ref. would have been to abolish the office of president A total waste of money imo. Its just political patronage putting there friends in the park


Cant undestand how the govt put the age ref. to the public to lower the age They must have known it would be rejected

Justin1982

bob50 wrote: »

A more signiicant ref. would have been to abolish the office of president A total waste of money imo. Its just political patronage putting there friends in the park


Cant undestand how the govt put the age ref. to the public to lower the age They must have known it would be rejected

Not 100% sure its a complete waste. I mean like, we need a head of state to shake hands with the Queen when she comes to town. Can't have her having to shake hands with the "common" man now can we?

A president is the only person elected by the people for the people. They don't need to have large powers to have huge influence. The spotlight the position can get would be enough to influence at home and abroad.

jackal

This was not a broad issue that would affect a lot of people. Only a handful of people will get to be president in the next 50 years.

What a non-issue and waste of money. Anyone know who came up with the idea that this was an important enough question to be put to a referendum?

Surely some simple polling would have told them it hadn't got a hope in hell of passing.

Why did they not vote on removing the requirement to swear in ""In the presence of Almighty God".

The constitution convention (https://www.constitution.ie/) outlined exactly what people were most vexed about, and the minimum age requirement of the president did not feature.

Environmental Protection
52%
Seanad Reform
52%
Local Government Reform
35%
Definition of the Family
29%
Separation of Church and State – secularisation of the Constitution
27%
Right to Die – providing for an assisted peaceful death
21%
Courts Service and the appointment of Judges
19%
Private Property Rights
17%
Abortion – the repeal of Article 40.3.3
15%
Bill of Rights – the further protection of human rights
15%
The Referendum Process
15%
The Irish Language
14%
Constitutional provision for Freedom of Information
12%
Pensions
12%
Constitutional provision Equality budgeting
12%
Constitutional provision for the Ombudsman
10%
Mental Health
10%
Right to vote for all citizens in all elections
10%
Amendment of the Preamble
8%
Role and powers of the President
6%
International relations, Third-level education, Economic Policy and issues associated with the referendum on same-sex marriage
(Each) 3%
Official recognition of Irish sign language, Official name of the State, Animal rights, Children’s rights, Role of the Comptroller & Auditor General, Gender Recognition, Awarding of Honours, Civil service Reform, Immigration, “Recall” Voting, a general revision of the Constitution.
(Each) 1%

expectationlost

jackal wrote: »

This was not a broad issue that would affect a lot of people. Only a handful of people will get to be president in the next 50 years.

What a non-issue and waste of money. Anyone know who came up with the idea that this was an important enough question to be put to a referendum?

a guy called De Velera seeing he put the age requirement in the constitution.

otherwise it was the Taoiseach/cabinet

Zubeneschamali

I voted Yes, and I'd vote Yes to lower all such limits to 18 if I got the chance.

But I see no hypocrisy or inconsistency in people voting Yes to SSM and No to this, I think that's just a sour grapes argumant form the No-to_ssm brigade.

expectationlost

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I voted Yes, and I'd vote Yes to lower all such limits to 18 if I got the chance.

But I see no hypocrisy or inconsistency in people voting Yes to SSM and No to this, I think that's just a sour grapes argumant form the No-to_ssm brigade.

except for all the yes-to_ssm saying it

Zubeneschamali

expectationlost wrote: »

except for all the yes-to_ssm saying it

OK, maybe there is some sour grapes from the Yes-to-21-year-old-candidates crew, too, although I didn't think anyone cared enough to be sour about this result.

No Voter And Proud

it was majorly rejected though. move on guys.
This would have been a bad move for the country, imagine the shock if Jedward were president!

expectationlost

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

OK, maybe there is some sour grapes from the Yes-to-21-year-old-candidates crew, too, although I didn't think anyone cared enough to be sour about this result.

i didn't suggest anyone was sour you did, I suggested people thought both referendums were about equality and still do even after it didn't pass.

Zubeneschamali

expectationlost wrote: »

i didn't suggest anyon was sour you did, I suggested people thought both referendums were about equality and still do even after it didn't pass.

Thinking both referendums are "about equality" does not mean one has to be in favour of both to be consistent or avoid hypocrisy. If there was a referendum to seize all savings and split them equally among all citizens, one could say that was "about equality", but few people would think it was in any way correlated with how anyone feels about SSM.

expectationlost

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Thinking both referendums are "about equality" does not mean one has to be in favour of both to be consistent or avoid hypocrisy. If there was a referendum to seize all savings and split them equally among all citizens, one could say that was "about equality", but few people would think it was in any way correlated with how anyone feels about SSM.

you one that said it was only people who voted no to ssm were saying both were about equality, I was simple pointed out that wasn't the case.

Jim2007

It appears most European countries have a minimum age limit on being president as shown here.

expectationlost

oliver moran from 2nd republic points out that if you go by percentage points for those in favour at the constitutional convetion, the presidential age referendum was the one they were least enthused about https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UktBFBdnjY4Lz1Kv6WsepQlQPIJNyKugUUVfyXSBwO4/edit#gid=0 although the gov knew this and just thought it would save money by having it at the same time as a more controversial referendum

marienbad

expectationlost wrote: »

i didn't suggest anyon was sour you did, I suggested people thought both referendums were about equality and still do even after it didn't pass.

I was surprised more didn't see it this way . A simple equality issue for me .

expectationlost

Jim2007 wrote: »

It appears most European countries have a minimum age limit on being president as shown here.

explain France.