Petition for the Rights of all Citizens to Vote in Presidential Elections

[DannyInvincible]

5 million new passports is 400 million quid.

Plus say....a 'diaspora voters register' with registration fees of 50 quid. Another 250 million.

Shrewd.

Some specific figures here... According to the Irish Times, the Irish government earned nearly €50 million from issuing 733,060 passport last year, although the passport service cost about €30 million to operate: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-on-course-to-issue-one-million-passports-in-wake-of-brexit-1.3050540


Last year, the Department of Foreign Affairs issued 733,060 passports which represented a 9 per cent increase on 2015 and the projected one million passport applications follows last year’s Census confirming that Ireland has a population of 4.76 million.

The number of passports issued earned the Department of Foreign Affairs €46.74 million.

Last year, it cost the Department €31.63 million to operate the passport service. This included the Department employing 233 temporary clerical officers and this was an increase of 62 compared to 2015.

[backstothewall]

What's the felling on 2018? how likely is Michael D Higgins go for a second term? Will there even be an election?

[BonnieShels]

A president can nominate themselves for the presidency. Traditionally if that happens there is no contest as a President is given a free reign to take a second term.

Given Mick's universal appeal it would be brain dead for anyone to consider running against him. I hope he does choose a second term given the undesirable possibility of who else may go for it... ahem... Bertie.

Plus... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjqtcsUIAAAr_pd.jpg

[BonnieShels]

And this:

http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/2840309/original/?width=419&version=2840309

[NeverFeltBetter]

Certainly, none of the big three parties would send a candidate against Higgins. I would wonder if the hard-left would coalesce around a candidate though, not out of any genuine expectation of winning but to advance their agenda on a national stage in such a contest. I remember there was some displeasure from them towards Higgins over the Water Charges Bill, nonsensical or no.

Probably won't be quite as varied as 2011 anyway.

[BonnieShels]

Meaning 2025 (or more likely sooner given Higgins will be 85 come that election and may pass on before then if he took a second term), will be an absolute sh1tshow like 2011, 1997 and 1990. Eugh.

[backstothewall]

If nordies get a vote at a future election Niall Ó Donnghaile is very well placed for a run (if it's something he is interested in - with the boundary changes due in the north he could well be an MLA for Belfast South-East by then).

No one is more associated with extending the franchise to the north than him. Makes sense that SF might put him forward.

[backstothewall]

Or we could take inspiration from the US and find an Irish version of Trump

Not sure if that would be Michael O'Leary or Joe Brolly.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I did see some headline a few weeks ago about Brolly and the Presidency. Quite possibly a WUM exercise.

[DannyInvincible]

Or we could take inspiration from the US and find an Irish version of Trump

Not sure if that would be Michael O'Leary or Joe Brolly.

Ah, Joe's alright. O'Leary, on the other hand, may well be a sociopath.


I did see some headline a few weeks ago about Brolly and the Presidency. Quite possibly a WUM exercise.

He was on talking about "somebody having to do something" about the state of the country with Ivan Yates on Newstalk the other week (http://www.newstalk.com/Joe-Brolly-considering-run-for-Irish-Presidency), but I thought he was humouring Yates when he suggested he himself might be the man to do it via the presidency. Maybe not... Who knows?

[CraftyToePoke]

Its grand as it is lads, Higgins ticks many boxes, including a lazy stereotype in us having actually elected the closest thing we have to a leprechaun to represent us on the world stage.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I vaguely recall Higgins saying he would only serve one term during the 2011 campaign but since rowing back to a "No comment" position. I'm sure he wouldn't want to turn out like Dev's second term, but if he feels his health is up for it, then why not?

[BonnieShels]

He most definitely said he would only serve one term.

Is there merit in making the presidential term 5 years and making it maximum of 3 terms so that you get a similar length but also don't commit people for such a long time and give us Dev or McAleese situations.

[Eminence Grise]

There's an argument to be made for cutting the term down to 5 years, though I'm sure critics would point to the unimportance of the role and the increased costs over time with the shorter electoral cycle. I'd favour 2 x 5 years, tbh. 15 years is too much, and it's nigh-on impossible to unseat an incumbent, even a poor one.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I'd be happy with one single 7 year term.

[DannyInvincible]

A referendum on the right of all Irish citizens - both at home and abroad - to vote in presidential elections has been provisionally set for June of 2019 (subject to passage of bills by the houses of the Oireachtas and formal confirmation of the polling date): http://irishpost.co.uk/date-announced-for-referendum-on-right-of-irish-abroad-to-vote-in-presidential-elections/

[dahamsta]

If you want to vote here, live here.

[Real ale Madrid]

If you want to vote here, live here.

Including Irish Passport holders North of the Border?

[nigel-harps1954]

Don't all Irish citizens already have the right to vote here provided they have some form of Irish address? I don't see any issue with leaving things the way it is. At the same time, I couldn't care less who votes in a presidential election as it's probably the most pointless position for anyone to hold in Ireland.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I believe you have to be living here continuously for a certain period of time to legally vote. In practice, it means very little, as most emigrants are still on the register under their last Irish address, and can easily return home and vote in any election if the need takes them. I don't think there's any serious effort to stop such things. I know a few people who voted in the SSM election who came home from Britain, who probably voted illegally under the letter of the law.

I think the idea of this vote - beyond being a largely meaningless sop to the diaspora - is that people living abroad can postal vote legitimately or something.

Edit: I'm also with Stu on this one, and think representation in elections should be tied to residency and contribution to the state, with acknowledgement of obvious exceptions.

[osarusan]

I will probably vote against it.

Also, there will be a referendum on lowering the voting age to 16...I think I'd vote against that too.

[osarusan]

At the same time, I couldn't care less who votes in a presidential election as it's probably the most pointless position for anyone to hold in Ireland.
Head of club licencing process at the FAI surely.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Not sure about that one myself. How does one measure the metric of being mentally/emotionally capable of having the franchise? It seems that much of the western world has decided 18 is it just because that's when one traditionally finishes school and leaves the family home, but it seems a tad out-dated a way of measuring it. There are plenty of politically engaged 16 year olds who would vote, probably more who wouldn't. But what's the negative to having it reduced to 16?

All the others mooted seem fairly straightforward, regards "womens place in the home", blasphemy and elected mayors.

[DannyInvincible]

Including Irish Passport holders North of the Border?

Irish nationals north of the border were and have been excluded or left marooned from the civic affairs of the independent Irish state not strictly by choice but by chance of geography on account of the imposition of a line of partition against their will (and against the democratically-expressed will of the rest of the nation, in fact), so I concur with you; I don't think it'd be fair to just lump them in with Irish nationals who have decided to emigrate abroad (if distinction is going to be drawn between one group of Irish nationals and another group for the purposes of denying one of those groups a vote in presidential elections, that is).

That's not to play down the hardship and undesirable economic forces that impel citizens to emigrate, but is it reasonable to expect northern nationals to up-root themselves from their homes, families, relations, communities and/or land north of the border, were they've called home for generations, if not centuries, and move south in order to be entitled to vote for their president?


I'm also with Stu on this one, and think representation in elections should be tied to residency and contribution to the state, with acknowledgement of obvious exceptions.

Considering the president is an official representative of the nation, I personally think it would be fitting that all members of the nation have a chance to elect him. Consider payment to the state for an Irish passport the consideration or contribution made in return for a vote perhaps?

I only draw the distinction between northern nationals and nationals abroad in the other paragraphs above in order to challenge the idea of classing the two as effectively identical if a category of nationals are indeed to be excluded, but (as stated) my own position would be to not exclude any Irish nationals from presidential elections. I do accept that Dáil elections, which are localised, are a different matter, although I have heard it proposed that northern nationals be permitted to vote for a specific TD who would represent their interests in the state and I would certainly be open to the idea if it was viable.

[osarusan]

Not sure about that one myself. How does one measure the metric of being mentally/emotionally capable of having the franchise? It seems that much of the western world has decided 18 is it just because that's when one traditionally finishes school and leaves the family home, but it seems a tad out-dated a way of measuring it. There are plenty of politically engaged 16 year olds who would vote, probably more who wouldn't. But what's the negative to having it reduced to 16?

All the others mooted seem fairly straightforward, regards "womens place in the home", blasphemy and elected mayors.

Any cut-off point based on age is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Even with an age of 16, some politically engaged 15 year olds would be excluded.

If people can put forward an argument that 18 is in fact outdated, and that evidence suggests that a majority of 16 year olds are politically engaged and informed, I'll certainly consider it.

[nigel-harps1954]

The fact remains, the majority of 16 year olds are not mature enough to make balanced decisions to properly affect their futures. I'd even go as far as saying the same about the majority of 18 year olds.

There's always going to be a large amount of 16 year olds well informed and politically engaged, but not enough for me to say I think all 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. I feel sorry for those who are mature enough, but their time will come. They've only two years to wait.

I know at that age, I'd always have considered myself someone who kept up to date with the world around me, read the newspapers, read books, and watched the news every evening as a 16 year old. But when I look back now, I'd never say I was mature enough to be allowed a vote in any sort of election when I was 16, only gaining any sort of real maturity when I went into my twenties. I shudder to think of myself as a 16 year old having had any say in a general election for example.

[Gather round]

The fact remains, the majority of 16 year olds are not mature enough to make balanced decisions to properly affect their futures. I'd even go as far as saying the same about the majority of 18 year olds

Sorry for the slight pedantry, but isn't that subjective opinion rather than objective fact?

My own guess based on quite a lot of anecdotage as a regular local Council candidate: most parties communicate with voters using leaflets etc. that imply many people don't vote based on balanced decisions. The leaflets are very localised, for a low reading age and so on.

Any age is arbitrary: 16 is more inclusive than 18. Similarly, we involve uninterested/ unintelligent/ p*sstaking adults and all. If the pollsters want to scientifically survey different voting patterns fine, but for me previous point outweighs this.


Irish nationals north of the border were and have been excluded or left marooned from the civic affairs of the independent Irish state not strictly by choice but by chance of geography on account of the imposition of a line of partition against their will (and against the democratically-expressed will of the rest of the nation, in fact)

Those citizens have been excluded (from voting for a Pres or similar) because that's what a century of Southern governments broadly backed by public opinion wanted. Geographical accident or nasty partition are incidental to this. (And by association, the democratically-expressed will is rather different from what you claim).

[OwlsFan]

Certainly, none of the big three parties would send a candidate against Higgins. I would wonder if the hard-left would coalesce around a candidate though, not out of any genuine expectation of winning but to advance their agenda on a national stage in such a contest. I remember there was some displeasure from them towards Higgins over the Water Charges Bill, nonsensical or no.

Probably won't be quite as varied as 2011 anyway.

But Higgins is the "hard-left". Why would they put up a candidate against one of their own.

[osarusan]

Any age is arbitrary: 16 is more inclusive than 18. Similarly, we involve uninterested/ unintelligent/ p*sstaking adults and all. If the pollsters want to scientifically survey different voting patterns fine, but for me previous point outweighs this.

Obviously, the younger we go, the more inclusive it gets. So, without a process that identifies (and disenfranchises) uninterested/unintelligent/p*sstaking voters of all ages, we have to draw line on the right side of the inclusive/too young and uninformed line.

More inclusive sounds good, but what is being included?

[NeverFeltBetter]

I guess, for me, I don't see what happens on the day you turn 18 that suddenly makes you capable of having the kind of rights we associate with that age, that go beyond the franchise. But then you could just as easily ask what makes 16 so special either?

I'm not sure. I think in the end, something that gets younger people into politics from a younger age is to be encouraged, though it has to go hand in hand with education: the much maligned "CSPE" should be giving some serious dressing up if a voting age of 16 is agreed upon.

[osarusan]

I guess, for me, I don't see what happens on the day you turn 18 that suddenly makes you capable of having the kind of rights we associate with that age, that go beyond the franchise. But then you could just as easily ask what makes 16 so special either?


Of course no switch gets turned on on the day you turn 18. developing an informed and critical interest in politics is a process that will take time. Some may have that by 16, others may never have it. But, seeing as we don't actually test individuals for it in any way, we are left drawing an arbitrary line in terms of age.

Again, if there is any evidence which suggests that 17 or 16 is a better place to draw that line than 18, then I'll happily look at it.

[DannyInvincible]

Those citizens have been excluded (from voting for a Pres or similar) because that's what a century of Southern governments broadly backed by public opinion wanted. Geographical accident or nasty partition are incidental to this.

Partition preceded said exclusion, which wouldn't have happened without partition, so I don't think you could say partition is incidental. Partition was the primary cause of it.


(And by association, the democratically-expressed will is rather different from what you claim).

I was referring to the 1918 general election, where pro-independence candidates won 73 of the 105 available Irish seats whilst standing on an independence platform.

[backstothewall]

Partition preceded said exclusion, which wouldn't have happened without partition, so I don't think you could say partition is incidental. Partition was the primary cause of it.



I was referring to the 1918 general election, where pro-independence candidates won 73 of the 105 available Irish seats whilst standing on an independence platform.

If one believes as I do that the people of Ireland are sovereign I'm not sure the undemocratic charge is fair these days. Allow me to explain with use of a quick timeline.

1916: Easter Rising and Proclamation
1918: SF go the people with a pledge to give effect to the proclamation and establish the Dail. Receive an overwhelming democratic mandate from the people and establish Dáil Éireann
1921: Ireland is illegitimately partitioned without a mandate granted by the people through a national election or referendum.
1998: The Good Friday agreement receives an overwhelming democratic mandate (85%) from the people at a referendum.

This all hangs on the question of whether the people of Ireland are sovereign or not. I'd hold it to be one of those self evident truths that they are. If the people of Ireland were capable of retroactively legitimising the 1916 Proclamation at the 1918 election, then they must also be capable of retroactively legitimising partition at the 1998 referendum.

That's not to say that partition wasn't a very obvious example of gerrymandering or wasn't completely illegitimate for 77 years. But that democratic loose end is now tied up in my opinion.

With that being said, I think I should get a vote for our president by virtue of being an Irish citizen living in the north. The GFA which the sovereign people of Ireland voted for also guaranteed Irish citizenship to northerners. I'd hold it to be another of those self evident truths that the votes of all citizens who have reached the age of majority should have equal weight among a sovereign people. Therefore i think i believe northerners should be allowed to vote on constitutional amendments.

I would accept that I should have no say on issues of taxation or public expenditure in the 26 counties, as I won't usually be subject to the taxes levied, or use the services provided. However the Oireachtas does a lot of things that don't involve significant levels of taxation or expenditure. For that reason i think it would make a lot of sense to loosely follow the structure of Congress in the USA, having a lower house elected by the people of the 26 counties with competency for taxation and expenditure, and an upper house with competency for non-finance issues elected by the people of all 32 counties.

Aside from this being more democratic in my opinion, it could also provide a vehicle through which to continue to connect northerners to the EU post-Brexit, and give the Seanad a reason for being and something constructive to do with it's time.

[osarusan]

Not about presedential elections specifically, but still relevant.

A Belfast student who wanted the right to vote in the referendum has lost her case in the high court.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-student-loses-bid-to-vote-in-abortion-referendum-1.3468268


A Belfast student who claimed she should be entitled to vote in the Eighth Amendment repeal referendum because of her Irish citizenship has lost her application to bring a High Court challenge over the matter.

Roisin Morelli (26), who is studying for a Masters in Translational Medicine at Queens University, wanted to bring a judicial review claiming a refusal to grant her a vote was contrary to the Constitution, the Belfast Agreement and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Mr Justice Charles Meenan, on Friday, rejected her application saying the case she made “falls well short of being arguable”.

[centre mid]

No representation without taxation.

US ex-pats voting in their elections is fine with a population of over 300m, could be quite undemocratic to have "all" Irish citizens allowed a vote.

[Fizzer]

By the same token,shouldn’t 16 year olds then be exempt from having to pay PAYE if they work? It’s taxation without representation otherwise.

[Mr A]

As a parent with a teenager in the house, who due to the spread of the offspring will have a teenager in the house for 2 full decades, absolutely balls to them.