The other referendum - there is one you know!

[Ceist Beag]

Given the complete lack of discussion, interest and probably awareness of the second referendum being held next week, would it be best to spoil your vote rather than answering Yes or No? This is my intention anyway as I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we're being asked to vote on something that there appears to be no demand for whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned a spoiled vote will give a better answer than a No vote as I don't think we should even be asked to vote on this.

 

[michaelm]

I was going to vote No but I like the idea of spoiling this vote. Even if it were carried, and it won't be, no one under 35 will ever be nominated. It's a blatant waste of time and money, but did the Government think it could serve some other purpose? Maybe a sop to the pointless Constitutional Convention; or did they think it would encourage younger people to vote on the day (a demographic required to ease the passage of the Marriage Referendum); perhaps it's intended to take the hit (away from the Marriage Referendum) from disgruntled voters who want to kick the Government by voting No to something. If they wanted to tinker with the age of presidential candidate they should have upped it to 60 and made it a one term deal.

 

[The_Banker]

The result of this referendum wont matter a jot...

What 21 year old will get the backing of the oirocthas (sp) or 4 County Councils?

The political parties only nominate those they want to reward after a lifetime of 'service' and no 21 year old will have given that service to a party...

Pointless referendum but ill probably vote yes anyway...

 

[michaelm]

Paddy Power go 1/25 for a No.

 

[becky]

I agree there was no demand for this (as far as I know) and I am a bit perplexed as to why we are being asked to vote for this.

That said I will vote yes, and if there is a 21 year candidate presenting for the president, I will then use my democratic right to vote yes or no.

More likely no but who knows!.

 

[Purple]

That said I will vote yes, and if there is a 21 year candidate presenting for the president, I will then use my democratic right to vote yes or no.

To use a line I've used elsewhere; people are either equal or they are not.
I'll be voting yes. My only reservation is that it should be 18 and not 21.
I can't see any possible scenario where I'd vote for an 18 or 21 year old candidate but that's not the point. Once we are 18 we are adults and so we should be equal. Not allowing the people of this country to even vote for anyone under 35 for President is disgraceful.

 

[elacsaplau]

...people are either equal or they are not.
I'll be voting yes. My only reservation is that it should be 18 and not 21.

Purple - completely logical observation. Just to add on a little, I find it interesting that, in all likelihood, the good people of Ireland will vote to remove one form of discrimination from our constitution and on the same day vote to retain another form of discrimination. I suspect many who so do will actually be oblivious to such duplicity. I'd like to understand why they believe age discrimination is appropriate but discrimination due to sexual orientation is not.

Reminds me about the old line of getting the government (and laws) we deserve.

I understand the reservation about 18. The way I see this is: (a) 35 bad; (b) 21 less bad; (c) 18 ideal. We are not being presented with 18 as an option - and so as the practical choice is between bad and less bad, one should vote for the less bad option! Think of it in terms of our treatment of the LGBT community where (a) It dare not speak its name - bad; (b) civil partnership - less bad; (c) civil marriage - ideal.

 

[michaelm]

It is entirely reasonible to set a minimum age for such an important roll as guardian of the Constitution.

 

[michaelm]

It is entirely reasonible to set a minimum age for such an important roll as guardian of the Constitution.

I'd like to understand why they believe age discrimination is appropriate but discrimination due to sexual orientation is not.

There is more than one definition of discrimination. It is not necessarily unjust or prejudicial to discriminate but rather can be the recognition and understanding of difference.

 

[Leper]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who scream their heads off against any kind of discrimination and then vote differently. We have a "straight" population voting on what our homosexual population should or should not do. We have and ageing population who will march on the Dáil on ageism issues but if we want a 21 year old president, Heaven forbid! - we want to reward our corrupt politicians with a stint in the Áras and an enormous pension for life. Do we even need a president?

 

[michaelm]

We have a "straight" population voting on what our homosexual population should or should not do. We have and ageing population who will march on the Dáil on ageism issues but if we want a 21 year old president, Heaven forbid!

The implication - that only affected groups should vote on given measures - is silly; but perhaps I'm misreading your post. Anyone can be President, but not until they're 35 (with a bit of life experience), same as in the USA. We discriminate all the the time on the basis of recognising and understanding difference. This is sensible.

 

[Purple]

It is entirely reasonible to set a minimum age for such an important roll as guardian of the Constitution.

I agree. It should be the same age as we set for eligibility for voting for the guardian of the constitution. If the people of Ireland, in their wisdom, want to elect an 18 year old as President then they should be allowed to do so.
If there is a lower age limit then there certainly should be an upper age limit as we don't want a senile president... or maybe we should leave it to the people to decide.

 

[ashambles]

I agree there was no demand for this (as far as I know) and I am a bit perplexed as to why we are being asked to vote for this.

That said I will vote yes, and if there is a 21 year candidate presenting for the president, I will then use my democratic right to vote yes or no.

More likely no but who knows!.

I'm not sure if that's a safe assumption. Prior to Robinson there had only been 4 elections for the 9 terms.

The McAleese second term was not an election, Hillery was not elected for either of his terms. O'Dalaigh, O'Kelly or Hyde also got free passes.

The selection and election process for presidency should be changed, messing around with age limits is less important. They picked the change that allows them to claim they're reforming politics but keeping the bits that keep the presidency in political party hands.

The only reason we're getting more candidates of late is we've a more fragmented dail and senate - if we go back to two parties holding most seats we're quite likely to end up with two contestants or non contested elections.

 

[Purple]

As far as I know unanimity is required for a President to be appointed rather than elected.

I can’t see any possible scenario where all TD’s and Parties agree on a 21 year old candidate, let alone an 18 year old one.

 

[Ceist Beag]

I started this thread with the question based on whether we should vote on this referendum given the complete lack of discussion about it. So far the posts have been around whether to vote yes or no. Does anyone else think it is just wrong to vote on a question the establishment seem to wish wasn't even being asked in the first place? The assumption by politicians appears to be that if we don't discuss it then a No will win the day but surely it's wrong to even put the question to the people if they're not prepared to have an open debate about it? I would much rather a Yes vote is returned than a No if pushed but personally I think a spoiled vote gives a much cleared signal that I'm pissed off how this referendum was being run and that the constitution should not be taken so lightly as to throw out a referendum to election without really debating it.

 

[michaelm]

The political establishment have little interest in the result of this Other Referendum, although in fairness nor the media or public. If the Government want a Yes to any question they pull out all the stops. If they really want a Yes then they just don't take No for an answer. I wouldn't vote based on the strength of a campaign, or lack thereof. My default is No and I need to be convinced of the merits of changing the Constitution every time.

 

[Purple]

The political establishment have little interest in the result of this Other Referendum, although in fairness nor the media or public. If the Government want a Yes to any question they pull out all the stops. If they really want a Yes then they just don't take No for an answer. I wouldn't vote based on the strength of a campaign, or lack thereof. My default is No and I need to be convinced of the merits of changing the Constitution every time.

My opinion is that this is the sacrificial lamb being offered by the government to absorb the anti-government vote so that the marriage equality referendum is carried. They expect a No and they are most probably correct.

I cannot see any scenario where I would vote for a 21 year old candidate but I don't see that as a valid reason to enshrine ageism in our constitution.

 

[Leo]

My opinion is that this is the sacrificial lamb being offered by the government to absorb the anti-government vote so that the marriage equality referendum is carried.

Was thinking along those lines myself!

 

[Leper]

For a minute let's say this referendum will pass.

We will have the option for voting for a 21 year old to be President. And if the 21 year old is good enough, well fine, I'll vote for him/her.

Now, Lepers being lepers, and perhaps I want to protest about something (along with many more cynics) it is not out of the question that a 21 year old would be elected as President on a huge protest vote.

 

[elacsaplau]

There was an interesting point made by the Atheist Society today - who feel that none of its members could become President because to become President it is necessary to take the oath of office which starts with "In the presence of Almighty God,......" Their belief, which I accept, is that as they could not in conscience make such a declaration and as such a declaration is a requirement for becoming President, they are excluded from being President. They argue, making such a declaration, would be the moral equivalent of asking a fervent believer to take an oath which commences with "In the absence of any Almighty God,...."

Apparently, similar oaths are required in order to join the Judiciary and the Council of State. Presumably, at least some people who attained such high office were not believers but nonetheless decided to take an oath they did not believe in. If so - which is wrong, the person who made a false oath or the Constitution of a Republic which places people in such a position?