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

CiDeRmAn

If you're old enough to die in the defence of this country you are old enough to run to lead this country.
So what if someone in their twenties is elected president, they'll have won the support of a majority of its citizens.

Lt J.R. Bell

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

If you're old enough to die in the defence of this country you are old enough to run to lead this country.
So what if someone in their twenties is elected president, they'll have won the support of a majority of its citizens.

Tosh

Any one brave enough , can die . They don't need to have much going on in the head. (one might argue one is crazy for signing up to war)

You think we should let any little idiot be President? Hell, even the idiots didn't normally get near Officer Class during War (well, that is very very disputed, especially WW1 lol) It is hard enough to separate the the crap from the good amongst the older lot, let's not have to ad more. It actually costs the State , as these candidates can claim allowances etc if they get enough votes.

They have no life experiences. Same applies to voting them young to be TD's

Bertie won the support of the majority, Obama won the support of the majority , Hitler won ........................

Lt J.R. Bell

delta_bravo wrote: »

Voting no but your reason isnt really possible. It's very difficult to get nominated they would have no chance.

Also clarify the thread title

Same could be said about young boys and girls getting TD seats, cough daddy's/uncle's seat.

So, you come from a dynasty that tipped their hat to the Grand Auld Man, or have proper Party Grass Roots in a region, nothing is impossible

BoJack Horseman

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

They have no life experiences.

Won't someone please furnish the list of "life experiences" that a candidate must have to be considered worthy?

I keep hearing this line, but nothing to back it up.

Hitler won ........................

There we go

Podge_irl

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Bertie won the support of the majority, Obama won the support of the majority , Hitler won ........................

All of whom, I might add, were well over 35.

Anyone who actually thinks "Jedward" would get elected to be president is a complete idiot. Not least because two people can't be president.

Podge_irl

kerry4sam wrote: »

We sent a turkey to represent our Nation in the EuroVision. This here, electing the likes of Jedward to Aras An Uachtarain as our President, this does sound like something our Nation would do, just-for-the-craic like.

Oh Heavens Above, what next!

Yup. Eurovision representative and Head of State are basically completely interchangeable.

osarusan

As mentioned before, I'll be voting Yes.


People are talking about young wans with no clue becoming president, but all this means is that young wans with no clue can try and become candidates.

I doubt they'd even get a nomination, never mind actually be elected - but I see no reason why the state should forbid an adult who is old enough to vote from attempting to run.

folamh

The general issue of youth in politics is something I see both pros and cons with. On one hand, and let's not beat around the bush here, young people tend to be idealistic and headstrong, and they lack life experience. On the other hand, the older generations are touch of touch with modern issues. Often I think that we should have more young people in politics to represent the interests of millennials. People who retain the knowledge of this generation, who are facing the same future prospects that I am.

Both young and old can bring something valuable to the political order, but what about the role of presidency? Well, it's not a role that requires much skill or knowledge in the first place, is it? At least compared to a government minister.

But those are generalizations and the president is an individual, not a generalization.

In any case, I think (in all the coverage I've personally heard, anyway) that too much emphasis is put on the "21 years old" figure and not enough on "below 35". Someone pointed out in another thread that Jesus Christ, Michael Collins and a other iconic leaders were below the age of 35. If I wanted this referendum to pass, it would be because I wouldn't want deserving people who were 31, 34 or whatever to miss out on the opportunity.

My core view is that the office of presidency should be based on merit and capability rather than age and, for that particular job, age happens to be correlated with merit. The legal option should be there, but that doesn't mean that, in the real world, a 21 year old will ever be president. Unless it was a special case. So I support lowering the age on purely ideological grounds.

However, if the age is lowered, I fear that you'll get hoards of people voting for young people for the sake of it, rather than because the candidate is truly capable. So I don't really support it on practical grounds.

Fcuk it. I'll probably abstain!

BoJack Horseman

folamh wrote: »

age happens to be correlated with merit.

Can you prove this?

We keep hearing about this 'life experience' angle, but nothing to back it up.

Why is a citizen in their 20's less meritorious than one aged 70?

What makes a 60-something aged man in the Aras superior to a 30-something?

Are old people by default better?
These days, unlikely.

To quote the Simpsons:

“Abe, tell ’em about your amazing life.” – Roger Meyers Jr.
“I spent forty years as a night watchman at a cranberry silo.” – Abe “Grampa” Simpson
“Wow!” – Roger Meyers Jr.

Douglas Hyde, 84 & in office
De Valera, 90 & in office, died 2 years later.
Sean T O'Kelly, in office aged 78.
Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, died 2 years after leaving office.
Erskine Childers, actually died in office!

Can someone please advise me what it was about these old men's ages that made them automatically superior to someone less than 35?
In measurable, quantifiable aspects.

Seems that an upper age discrimination might be more useful instead of the retirement home the Aras became.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Fred Swanson wrote: »

That is frankly insulting to their memories.

Their ghosts will be after me for sure.

Speaking of memories, I wonder what is the state of memory for a 90 year old president vs a 34 year old one?
(Seeing as merit is all about age).

I'm still awaiting the reason why an elderly man is automatically superior to a younger one, based on nothing other than age?

sporina

Late onto this one, like most, but who on earth came up with the new age proposal of 21? I mean, from 35 to 21 - that makes no sense - maybe 28 or at best 26 but a jump of 14 yrs? Crazy!
Maybe they just picked 21 so it will not go through..

feargale

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There we go

Go where?

c_man

I'll probably spoil my ballot.

LookingFor

Not sure I see the need to keep under 35s out of the race. This isn't saying 'let's elect a 21 year old', but just allowing them to throw their hat in the ring. Why not? I don't think it's inconceivable that one day I may prefer a u35 candidate to the others. If the people don't want such a candidate they don't have to vote him or her in, but I don't really see the need to legally keep their name off the ballot.

Podge_irl

sporina wrote: »

Late onto this one, like most, but who on earth came up with the new age proposal of 21? I mean, from 35 to 21 - that makes no sense - maybe 28 or at best 26 but a jump of 14 yrs? Crazy!
Maybe they just picked 21 so it will not go through..

They picked 21 to bring it in line with the age restriction for the Dail. They should both be 18 of course.

Podge_irl

folamh wrote: »

However, if the age is lowered, I fear that you'll get hoards of people voting for young people for the sake of it, rather than because the candidate is truly capable. So I don't really support it on practical grounds.

What on earth, in all the history of the Irish state, makes you think "hoards" of people will vote for young people for the sake of it. As it is it is abundantly clear that the idea of a young president is utterly abhorrent to a vast swath of people. Unless you think it will be the result of all the young people voting - in which case I suggest you look at the track record of young people voting. And of course, they're massively outnumbered by older generations anyway.

Fear of a young "joke" candidate being elected if this passes is a mind-numbingly stupid reason to vote no that flies in the face of all logic and history.

ThunbergsAreGo

I dont see any argument for no on this.

As many as said it's only to allow someone to be a candidate

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Yes to both referendums. Lets be a less homophobic and ageist country after Friday please.

There's fantastic 30 year olds who could represent us very capably as President and terrible 70 year olds. Why allow one but not the other?

Brancott

The risk is the celeb populist candidate sweeping in after winning an X-Factor Got Talent Big Brother Show.
For that reason I'll be voting No.

ThunbergsAreGo

Brancott wrote: »

The risk is the celeb populist candidate sweeping in after winning an X-Factor Got Talent Big Brother Show.
For that reason I'll be voting No.

Are people over 35 not eligible for these competitions?

jobbridge4life

Brancott wrote: »

The risk is the celeb populist candidate sweeping in after winning an X-Factor Got Talent Big Brother Show.
For that reason I'll be voting No.

How on Earth is that a risk? I mean what would possess the Irish people to take leave of their senses to that degree?

BoJack Horseman

Brancott wrote: »

The risk is the celeb populist candidate sweeping in after winning an X-Factor Got Talent Big Brother Show.

Like the last presidential election?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

I think a Head of State has to have a certain gravitas and wisdom about them, that really only comes with age and experience no matter how clever you are. I'm voting no.

Podge_irl

No gravitas at all lads...

Wacker The Attacker

The presidency is probably the last thing in irish life that we need a talent sahow to decide the winner of

BoJack Horseman

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

The presidency is probably the last thing in irish life that we need a talent sahow to decide the winner of

How else to decide other than talent?

Aren't we all voting on the candidates merit?
(Merit apparently impossible to attain as a 34 year old).

skooterblue2

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Yes to both referendums. Lets be a less homophobic and ageist country after Friday please.

There's fantastic 30 year olds who could represent us very capably as President and terrible 70 year olds. Why allow one but not the other?

Name one ... with suitable accomplishments and accreditations.......?

keeponhurling

LookingFor wrote: »

Not sure I see the need to keep under 35s out of the race. This isn't saying 'let's elect a 21 year old', but just allowing them to throw their hat in the ring. Why not? I don't think it's inconceivable that one day I may prefer a u35 candidate to the others. If the people don't want such a candidate they don't have to vote him or her in, but I don't really see the need to legally keep their name off the ballot.

That would have been my thoughts too.
Interesting that the poll on here favours a No vote, although not sure how reflective that might be of the electorate
(I haven't seen any in the national media, a bit odd cos they did them on the marriage referendum so surely could ahve asked the question at the same time)

On ageism, I thought Michael D was too old to be President since he didn't get my vote, although I was happy for him to be on the ballot.
Think he's done a good job since he got in, pleasantly surprised.

BoJack Horseman

keeponhurling wrote: »

On ageism, I thought Michael D was too old to be President

And as for the "a 30 year old has no life experience" set, President Higgins, after leaving college spent a few years as a lecturer before retiring to the taxpayers teat & politics for the past 45 years.

Obviously 'life experience' doesn't really count after all.

sporina

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Yes to both referendums. Lets be a less homophobic and ageist country after Friday please.

There's fantastic 30 year olds who could represent us very capably as President and terrible 70 year olds. Why allow one but not the other?

really? name some of the above please?

folamh

I ended up voting yes. At the end of the day, if you don't want a young president... don't vote for the individual!

Amirani

sporina wrote: »

really? name some of the above please?

Leo Varadkar is good enough to be the next Taoiseach but not the next president?

Pyr0

Wouldn't whoever is running for president need the backing of their party to actually run? Kinda like the Republican and Democrat candidates in the USA?

Amirani

Pyr0 wrote: »

Wouldn't whoever is running for president need the backing of their party to actually run? Kinda like the Republican and Democrat candidates in the USA?

They need the backing of at least 20 TDs/Senators or 4 county councils for nomination. Funding a campaign is another impediment.

raze_them_all_

I'm 26 and voted no. 21 is too young, 25 and i would of voted yes

Pyr0

Diego Simeone wrote: »

They need the backing of at least 20 TDs/Senators or 4 county councils for nomination. Funding a campaign is another impediment.

Thanks for that

I voted Yes on the matter, if a 21 year old can receive such backing and support AND be able to fund such a campaign then they must be Jesus Christ reborn to pull off such a feat, fair f*cks to them!

To Elland Back

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Leo Varadkar is good enough to be the next Taoiseach but not the next president?

He is 36, so why not

folamh

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

I'm 26 and voted no. 21 is too young, 25 and i would of voted yes

What about 34?

BoJack Horseman

Yeah, its pretty hard to even get the nomination..... Look at Norris last time.

No good reason why age discrimination should also be an impediment.

Both my wife & I voted 'Yes'.

raze_them_all_

folamh wrote: »

What about 34?

well 34 is higher than 25.....

Heat_Wave

^^^

Some people still do not seem to realise that by voting Yes to this you are not only saying yes to a 21 year old been eligible to become president, but you are also saying yes to a 34 year old to be eligible to become president.

A 21year old will never be elected anyway so just vote yes

Sunnyisland

I voted yes on this, if some 21 year old thinks he good enough to be president of Ireland, let him/her put there credentials to the voting public and we can then decide, they couldent be any worse or embarrassing than gay Mitchell.

Emsloe

I voted no. I don't think any 21 year old is mature enough to meet the requirements of the role, no matter how smart/passionate/educated they are. I know the role is largely symbolic and I don't mean anyone under 35 is immature in a way that they'd show up to a state dinner in Speedos or something, but from the perpesctive of 'getting' the bigger picture of the role they're not up to it imo. That maturity doesn't magically arrive at 35 necessarily, but 21 is far too young too.

osarusan

I voted Yes.

I don't think the state should arbitrarily decide which adults are or are not old enough to run. Let the nomination process and electorate decide.

Amirani

To Elland Back wrote: »

He is 36, so why not

He would not have been eligible early last year. He's been the most likely successor to Kenny for number of years, and would likely have become Taoiseach had Kenny died/resigned during the current Dail.

Irelandcool

at age 21 you can join an army and possibly be a commander. A lot of intelligent people out there at the age of 21. I am confident that a 21 year old can become president. Not many people may do it but if they do well I say go a head. Also a 21 year old would be able to relate much more to the younger people in ireland.

folamh

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

well 34 is higher than 25.....

My point is that you're voting to keep the minimum age for candidacy at 35, even though there are potential worthy candidates below that age!

ThunbergsAreGo

Heat_Wave wrote: »

^^^

Some people still do not seem to realise that by voting Yes to this you are not only saying yes to a 21 year old been eligible to become president, but you are also saying yes to a 34 year old to be eligible to become president.

A 21year old will never be elected anyway so just vote yes

This x100 I dont understand peoples that dont see this. It is not an election to be president, it is an election to allow under 35s to amass enough money and nominations to run and then potentially win an election against other people.

If you really feel strongly about under 35s being elected just dont vote for them when the time comes

sporina

To Elland Back wrote: »

He is 36, so why not

he is 36 - was in jan - the age bracket is 21 - 35?