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

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

folamh

K4t wrote: »

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.

I think that this rationale is consistent with lowering the age, in that people may not vote for a young president for those reasons when he/she runs.

dogcat

Bam-ki Moon is disappointed that this referendum didn't pass. Shame on ye!

TheChizler

Anybody I know voting no mentioned Jedward as a reason, or seemed to think that some random 21 year old would be pushed into the role, saddens me that something would be voted against based on such narrow reason.

Maximus Alexander

TheChizler wrote: »

Anybody I know voting no mentioned Jedward as a reason, or seemed to think that some random 21 year old would be pushed into the role, saddens me that something would be voted against based on such narrow reason.

People seemed to be under the impression that it was a vote to install a 21 year old president, or to make all 21 year olds president, or something else equally nonsensical.

Not a NSA agent

TheChizler wrote: »

Anybody I know voting no mentioned Jedward as a reason, or seemed to think that some random 21 year old would be pushed into the role, saddens me that something would be voted against based on such narrow reason.

I found the same, anyone who voted know did so because they didnt want a 21 year old president, when asked what about a 34 year old or couldnt they just not vote for a 21 year old people saw the point.

The lack of debate on it made it so nobody actually gave it any thought.

Iwasfrozen

keeponhurling wrote: »

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.

No European law can contradict the constitution. In a conflict the constitution wins out.

I understand some people say it's ageist to limit candidates to those over 35 but I couldn't care less.

sdanseo

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

I found the same, anyone who voted know did so because they didnt want a 21 year old president, when asked what about a 34 year old or couldnt they just not vote for a 21 year old people saw the point.

A 34 year old can't become President because the Irish text takes precedence.

TheChizler

sdanseo wrote: »

A 34 year old can't become President because the Irish text takes precedence.

Huh?

sdanseo

TheChizler wrote: »

Huh?

The article of the constitution that references this says that the President must have reached his thirty-fifth year (i.e. be 34) - but in the Irish text it says he must be 35 years old.

Where there's a discrepancy or dispute, the Irish text is given precedence.

TheChizler

sdanseo wrote: »

The article of the constitution that references this says that the President must have reached his thirty-fifth year (i.e. be 34) - but in the Irish text it says he must be 35 years old.

Where there's a discrepancy or dispute, the Irish text is given precedence.

Ah, interesting. But I think the point about 34 year olds was about demonstrating that the proposed amendment wouldn't be limited to allowing 21 year olds to run.