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

Voted No - 35 seems about right for the minimum age, in my mind. I know people say "it should be up to the people to decide based on whatever candidates are put forward" but I selfishly don't want there to even be a possibilty of having someone as young as 21 being the president! If the question was to reduce it to 30, I would have considered a Yes, but 21 is too young in my mind.

K4t

Voted Yes obviously.

But one question? Why 21 and not simply 18? Is there something special about those three years that I never heard about (or experienced?)

LordSutch

I think 40+ years of age sounds about right for enough acquired wisdom & common sense.

At 21 many people are still teenagers in their thoughts & ideas.

BoJack Horseman

LordSutch wrote: »

I think 40+ years of age sounds about right for enough acquired wisdom & common sense.

What is this wisdom?

silverfeather

I voted yes. I don't think many will try but it might make younger people take more notice.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

I voted Yes.

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

You just voted for an arbitrary restriction to 21. If your argument, to allow the electorate to decide, held water the age should have been 18.

the groutch

Tbh the government parties have been a disgrace in their lack of a campaign to pass this amendment.
Zero posters, not once heard them try promote it with all the attention the media have given them.
They may as well not bothered to have a referendum on it at all.

The Adversary

The way I look at it is, if your old enough to pay taxes in a country, you should have every right to run to represent that country.

Maximus Alexander

Deleted User wrote: »

You just voted for an arbitrary restriction to 21. If your argument, to allow the electorate to decide, held water the age should have been 18.

Yeah but that wasn't an option. You can only vote on what they put in front of you.

Noxin

First time in this thread cause it's all been about that other deely but wow, I'm quite surprised.
That boardsie poll is quite close. I'm surprised so many would be ok with a 21 year old pres. Not that the pres does too much but still...

Imagine the little fecker, getting all **** faced in coppers and going on a mad one to some house party.

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

You just voted for an arbitrary restriction to 21. If your argument, to allow the electorate to decide, held water the age should have been 18.

In an earlier post, I said just that - 18 would be fine.

osarusan wrote: »

I'll be voting Yes.

No reason why a person should be disallowed from running at 21 (or even 18).

Let the electorate make up their mind as to the candidate's suitability based on their own personal criteria (be it experience or any other criteria), rather than the state.

Maximus Alexander

Noxin wrote: »

First time in this thread cause it's all been about that other deely but wow, I'm quite surprised.
That boardsie poll is quite close. I'm surprised so many would be ok with a 21 year old pres. Not that the pres does too much but still...

Imagine the little fecker, getting all **** faced in coppers and going on a mad one to some house party.

I was in favour of this amendment. It wasn't because I would be ok with a 21 year old president - I wouldn't - but the solution to that is that I wouldn't vote for one a 21 year old candidate in a presidential election. There's no reason to bar them from nomination.

I just do not understand the hypocrisy of people in this country!
It appears the SSM ref will pass, but looks doubtful the age of eligibility for president will fail. ( I'm only going by polls I have seen and listening to people)

Seriously, do people not understand, you are not actually voting for a 21 year old to actually be president!!!!!
Merely that they be allowed to go for the job.

Basically its looking like, us here in Ireland don't believe in discriminating against people based on their sexuality, but its OK to discriminate against people because of their age!

That's just embarrassing.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I just do not understand the hypocrisy of people in this country!
It appears the SSM ref will pass, but looks doubtful the age of eligibility for president will fail. ( I'm only going by polls I have seen and listening to people)

Seriously, do people not understand, you are not actually voting for a 21 year old to actually be president!!!!!
Merely that they be allowed to go for the job.

Basically its looking like, us here in Ireland don't believe in discriminating against people based on their sexuality, but its OK to discriminate against people because of their age!

That's just embarrassing.

It's over now, but you might be presented with an 'agreed candidate' in their 20s for none other than party political reasons, and not have any option to vote on it. Anyway 21, as an age has no logic today and is just as random as 35. The 'key of the door' age is 18 now.

I voted yes. Way I figure it is if someone around 21 is going to be considered for president then they must be doing something right. I think we all know it will never happen.

murpho999

bubblypop wrote: »

I just do not understand the hypocrisy of people in this country!
It appears the SSM ref will pass, but looks doubtful the age of eligibility for president will fail. ( I'm only going by polls I have seen and listening to people)

Seriously, do people not understand, you are not actually voting for a 21 year old to actually be president!!!!!
Merely that they be allowed to go for the job.

Basically its looking like, us here in Ireland don't believe in discriminating against people based on their sexuality, but its OK to discriminate against people because of their age!

That's just embarrassing.

I do agree with this. It is hypocritical to vote for equal rights in one and not other.
Also, it's only about the right to run does not mean that a 21 year old would get elected. They would have to run a campaign etc.

Also, the age limit of 35? Why not 45 or 55.

It just makes no sense.

I also think that holding the referendum at the same time as the marriage one has damaged it as the campaigning and debate has not been done to the same extent.

Ficheall

Why not 16?

Or 12?

I mean, it's not like they're going to be elected, so why not allow them to be nominated?

Etc..

Plazaman

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'll do this in one of the boxes

√

Sorry to hear you spoiled your vote. It was an X that was needed in one of the boxes.

LorMal

I think this referendum should start a trend for ' frivolous amendments to the Constitution that nobody in their right mind would give a **** about to keep the plebs distracted from the real issues the Government doesn't want to tackle'

For a start, I propose we raise the height restriction on joining the Guards to 6ft 8.
Imagine a force of giant gardai patrolling our streets.

titchy

Any results in on this yet?

LorMal

titchy wrote: »

Any results in on this yet?

Do you honestly care?

seamus

Yeah, looking like it's been roundly defeated, probably the opposite of the other vote - 65% against or so.

To be fair, there was basically no campaign on this. The only discussion I heard on it was Mario Rosenstock sketches about Jedward running for President. Once I heard that, I knew this one was dead.

In reality this one was an easy win if anyone had bothered to campaign, there's no reason to oppose it. But the government just slotted it in to add a tick to their re-election campaign rather than any desire or need to have it pass.

Irelandcool

I kinda of wish this was postponed to a lesser referendum or if we can vote again on this independently. The marriage referendum just completely overshadowed. I have counted more ads on the internet going for the no vote in that referendum then the yes vote to lower the age of the president.
I voted yes to lower the age of the 21 year old. I don't really think the life experience argument is valid since what is deemed a life experience is somewhat experience. Also at the age of 21 it is highly likely that they must of experience death of a love one be through disease, suicide, car accident, or murder. This is one thing that a lot of people in Ireland might relate to. Not to mention depression, marriage, education, and leaving cert.

Also at 21 these aren't kids, these are young adults with fully developed political opinions and views on the world.

murpho999

Ficheall wrote: »

Why not 16?

Or 12?

I mean, it's not like they're going to be elected, so why not allow them to be nominated?

Etc..

It's 21 as that is the same legal requirement to become a TD.

jonnny68

I assume the same people who obsessed over this referendum will put as much energy into the water charges campaign and bringing down this parasitic government?

Maximus Alexander

jonnny68 wrote: »

I assume the same people who obsessed over this referendum will put as much energy into the water charges campaign and bringing down this parasitic government?

Why would you assume that?

I assume they'll put as much effort into getting humanity to build a permanent settlement either in space, or on another astronomical body.

jonnny68

jonnny68 wrote: »

I assume the same people who obsessed over this referendum will put as much energy into the water charges campaign and bringing down this parasitic government?

No actually. I'm going to vote for this government again, but I don't get what your comment has to do with the referendum?

jonnny68

Deleted User wrote: »

No actually. I'm going to vote for this government again, but I don't get what your comment has to do with the referendum?

your voting for the worst government of all time who have destroyed this country and jumped on the yes bandwagon in order to try and claw back some support knowing full well come election time they are ****ed.

bravo old chap :rolleyes:

jonnny68

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Why would you assume that?

I assume they'll put as much effort into getting humanity to build a permanent settlement either in space, or on another astronomical body.

what drugs are you taking :eek::eek:

duffman13

If as it looks it will fail it kind of smacks of double standards. Equality for same sex marriage but not age equality to run for election. If your old enough your good enough IMO, delighted to see the yes vote for SSM however it's obviously and understandably overshadowed the presidential referendum.

jonnny68

i voted yes and am pleased the yes vote won the day, however people are easily fooled if they think that the government actually really care about this, this was a smokescreen to deflect away from the water charges / siteserv,etc,etc the only people who have always campaigned for SSM are the likes of People before profit, Anti austerity alliance and Sinn Fein.

Enda Kenny a parasitic crook seen an opportunity and jumped on it with the rest of the charlatans

duffman13

jonnny68 wrote: »

i voted yes and am pleased the yes vote won the day, however people are easily fooled if they think that the government actually really care about this, this was a smokescreen to deflect away from the water charges / siteserv,etc,etc the only people who have always campaigned for SSM are the likes of People before profit, Anti austerity alliance and Sinn Fein.

Enda Kenny a parasitic crook seen an opportunity and jumped on it with the rest of the charlatans

Ah seriously mate, you've a gripe about water charges there is enough threads on here about it, move on and look at other issues which are above and beyond water charges. All of the party's ran a good campaign in relation to SSM marriage. They all did a terrible job in the presidential ammendment.

jonnny68

duffman13 wrote: »

Ah seriously mate, you've a gripe about water charges there is enough threads on here about it, move on and look at other issues which are above and beyond water charges. All of the party's ran a good campaign in relation to SSM marriage. They all did a terrible job in the presidential ammendment.

I merely mentioned that this was a smokescreen that they used mate if people cannot see that they must be thick.

anyway back on topic, yes a very good day and convincing win

Maximus Alexander

jonnny68 wrote: »

what drugs are you taking :eek::eek:

Just high on life buddy.

What I said made about as much sense as what you said.

jonnny68

jonnny68 wrote: »

I assume the same people who obsessed over this referendum will put as much energy into the water charges campaign and bringing down this parasitic government?

On the contrary, people who believe in a dignified Presidency are also people who believe that it is correct to pay their bills and their taxes.

feargale

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On the contrary, people who believe in a dignified Presidency are also people who believe that it is correct to pay their bills and their taxes.

and in abiding by the law when they protest, as all civilised protesters do, refraining from yob, bullyboy tactics.

dogcat

I'm saddened that over 20% of the country is ageist.

Sheldons Brain

dogcat wrote: »

I'm saddened that over 20% of the country is ageist.

I'm saddened that people cannot count.

dogcat

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I'm saddened that people cannot count.

Our population is around 4.7 to 5 milliom. Over 1 million people voted no.

feargale

dogcat wrote: »

I'm saddened that over 20% of the country is ageist.

I'm saddened that a twelve year old can't contest the presidency.

dogcat

feargale wrote: »

I'm saddened that a twelve year old can't contest the presidency.

Feel good soon.

K4t

I voted Yes but just thinking about it now, the role of president of Ireland is mainly that of an ambassador, and for the simple reason that other states would probably view an older president as more preferable than a 21 year old (even if less competent), perhaps it's right to have the higher age limit. Also, someone mentioned that you can become a td at 21, so you'd have to be a bit sceptical of a 21 year old who wants to become president rather than a td too. So yeah, it's ageist, but then you can make that argument about a lot of things.

Jesus Wept

Yes because equality, obviously.

Not a NSA agent

Didnt expect it to pass but didnt expect it to be that high.

I voted yes, the candidates have to be nominated and then voted for. There might be no 21 year olds suitable for the job but there might be a 34 year old. Most of the people I know who voted no did so because they didnt want a 21 year old president. Some actual debate on it might have helped.

What they should have done, if they wanted this to pass (but I don't believe they really did), was to make a proposal that everybody entitled to vote for any political office is also entitled, from an age perspective, to stand for the same election.....

This would have brought the ages for President and TD to 18 and would have been genuinely fair and not ageist. As 21 was an arbitrary age, same as 35 now is, the issue was not one of equality, but whether 35 suited a president better than 21, and it does!

Pherekydes

I wonder will the Iona Institute be concerned as to who will represent the 26.9% of the voters who voted Yes?

I changed my mind in the last few weeks to Yes. Most No voters seem to be concerned about the likes of Jedward, but there are far greater numbers in the 30-35 age bracket, many of whom would grace a ballot.

Pherekydes

Deleted User wrote: »

As 21 was an arbitrary age, same as 35 now is, the issue was not one of equality, but whether 35 suited a president better than 21, and it does!

Would a 34 year-old suddenly be more acceptable on their next birthday?

keeponhurling

It does seem a very clear case of age discrimination.
Would have thought either European employment or equality laws could have dealt with this.

I wonder did Amnesty have a view, as for them the other referendum was a simple case of discrimination to be rectified.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

keeponhurling

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Wtf does Amnesty have to do with the Irish political process?

www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/amnesty-launches-yes-campaign-for-gay-marriage-vote-1.2148891

Indeed

Proponents of equality, they'd probably say