Sign up
Supporters
2021000
DECLINED PETITION
Dec 16, 01 / Dec 18, 17 04:13 UTC
Call for a referendum to change the minimum age of parliament to 25 years old

We, the undersigned who are citizens of Asgardia, petition the Head of Nation to call a referendum as per the Asgardia Constitution art. 16, § 6.  This referendum will be a vote on changing the constitutional minimum age of parliament to 25 years old.

A minimum age of 40 excludes the majority of the Asgardia population and, as seen by the current elections, there are not enough citizens over 40 willing to run to fill the entire Parliament.  Allowing everyone 25 years old and older to run and be elected allows a greater voice for the citizens and will allow a full Parliament which is fundamental to UN recognition and nation building.  This issue has also caused a lot of strife within the community.  A referendum must be called so as to have the voice of every citizen of Asgardia heard.

Dec 16, 01 / Dec 18, 17 20:08 UTC

We need more voting options than just support:

https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/feedback-11/topic/petitions-need-more-options-than-support-8534/

Dec 16, 01 / Dec 18, 17 23:55 UTC

The nature of a petition is to sign, not to decide over options. James O'Neill. It is not a vote, it is to support for a specific thing.

Dec 17, 01 / Dec 19, 17 03:45 UTC

I recommend an email to be sent to all verified Asgardians, reminding them of their obligation tocast their vote amd also asking them to participate in this referundum. Although we are now 150k+ in numbers, hardly few hundred are active on facebook groups or any other social media platform. We need to engage as many as possible

Jan 9, 02 / Jan 9, 18 19:49 UTC
Agreed.
Feb 16, 02 / Feb 13, 18 14:03 UTC
Muy cierto.
Dec 20, 01 / Dec 22, 17 10:35 UTC

I signed it

Dec 23, 01 / Dec 25, 17 03:30 UTC
Please give a right to all people.
Dec 23, 01 / Dec 25, 17 04:17 UTC
I was not even notified of the change as a candidate. I find this concerning.
Dec 23, 01 / Dec 25, 17 04:30 UTC
All the people of Asgardia should be allowed to serve in government. This operation of age is a loss of talent and will keep Asgardia stuck in the past! I even under 40 still as for your vote! We have got to change this!
Jan 12, 02 / Jan 12, 18 01:17 UTC
All the people of Asgardia IS allowed to serve in government already; over 40 in some positions and under 40 in other (more active) positions where they can fully make use of their many talents. Apparently having access to ALL positions is the big and only priority right now.
Dec 24, 01 / Dec 26, 17 09:31 UTC
great idea!!
Dec 25, 01 / Dec 27, 17 09:51 UTC
GOOD IDEA
Dec 25, 01 / Dec 27, 17 16:35 UTC
I completely concur with this motion.
Dec 28, 01 / Dec 30, 17 12:40 UTC
of course years dont show what is in your soul great petition :)
Jan 5, 02 / Jan 5, 18 11:08 UTC
To Be Heard; I Believe This Should Become Such, For All Humans In Asgard Who Wish Be Part To Be Able, To Be Heard; Age Isn't Any Issue. As Long As One Is Sound Of Mind, And Conscious Of Self, & Their Own Volition's; All Should Be Allowed At Any Age To Be Heard, And This Fact Alone Will Allow For Far More To Wish, & To Want Join To Be Part Alike; In Betterment Of All, And Derogation Of None.
Jan 6, 02 / Jan 6, 18 22:02 UTC
excellent proposal, has my vote and I know that the more than 500 Asgardians who have voted for me back my vote on this proposal
Jan 7, 02 / Jan 7, 18 22:28 UTC
Awesome Jaime, maybe you could ask them to support that petition? It direly needs support as it is limited in time...
Jan 9, 02 / Jan 9, 18 19:50 UTC
I clicked it, and nothing happened. I do not believe that my vote here was counted.
Jan 9, 02 / Jan 9, 18 22:58 UTC
we are more than 150000 asgardians and still cannot pass one simple petition... UNITY NOW!
Jan 12, 02 / Jan 12, 18 01:42 UTC
Unity? Do we all need to have the same ideas? I will be happy to accept it if the law is changed and I will support it then because it would be the voice of the majority. Until then I don´t have to agree. Unity means that if we make a decision we all push in that direction and we all accept it. By the way, the decision was already made, not by the majority, but it was accepted by the majority because it was in the (accepted) Constitution. When people try to keep pushing their own agenda despite the fact that it is not a priority right now, that is lack or unity. Not to agree with it is not lack of unity. 25 still way too young in my opinion. It is NOT about capability, many people can be brilliant at an early age, have great ideas and a solid education, of course more than many over 40 people, but it is not the norm, they are the exception. They didn't have enough time to develop. Age does not guarantee good criterium but it makes more likely to achieve a certain level or necessary maturity. As for the fact that there are not enough candidates, I would support lowering the age to some point between 30 and 35. There are several things that we could change in the constitution, but focusing on that before elections seem the wrong priority to me right now.
Jan 12, 02 / Jan 12, 18 18:45 UTC
You seem not to be aware that just last month there was a poll that had officially been opened by civic.asgardia to sense the need or not to lower the age for Parliament. Since the majority of over a 1000 voters in that poll expressed the need for change, I think it is fair to say that this change is the voice of the majority [of the people who voiced their opinion]. When you say that focusing on this change before [the end of the] elections seem[s to be] the wrong priority right now, seeing once more how far we currently are from having just enough eligible candidates for Parliament (and this, 3 months after the beginning of the elections, and less than 47 days before the voting ends), it does appear to be a very reasonable way not to see the date of the elections once more pushed further in time in hope to see new eligible candidates popping up like by magic... I respect your opinion but let's put the facts straight!
Jan 12, 02 / Jan 12, 18 20:38 UTC
again, the fact that I don't agree with something does not mean I am not aware of the facts.
Jan 12, 02 / Jan 12, 18 20:37 UTC
Fact: A majority of poll voters is not the same as majority of asgardians. Fact: lowering the age does not mean eliminating limits or allowing to run from 18 or from 25 years old. I think most of us agree with lowering the age, but I am not so sure there is a majority that thinks under 30 (or 35) is a good age for parliament.
Jan 14, 02 / Jan 14, 18 18:27 UTC
Helena, since you seem to miss from my posts the many different elements brought to your attention and only reply to one of them (the last one it seems), I will from now on number the parts of my message so to make it easier to reply: 1) Unfortunately, when you say that the poll didn't mention what lowering the age meant and that it could well be 30 or 35, you are misinformed. Only two ages were mentioned in that poll: "40" and "18". 2) The fact that the majority of the people active enough and who cared about taking part in this poll at that time chose "18" as opposed to "40" can only be seen as representative of the general will of the majority of Asgardians to change the age to "18"! To contest the result of a vote saying that "if all the potential voters would have voted, the outcome would have been different" would just be undemocratic! 3) I also want to mention, at this time, that in the history of Asgardia, this poll is the first multichoice voting that has received as many replies (1488!). It does mean something. Like it is done in some countries, maybe the Parliament can make it compulsory for every Asgardian to vote? This was debated before and will have to be addressed by the Parliament. But until the voting system is defined by the Parliament, you cannot discard that poll as being non representative. 4) I really don't see what's wrong with accepting the result of the poll as valid and representative of the general will of the majority of Asgardians... Please bring forth your arguments to justify your saying. 5) I'm sorry for you that the result the poll displayed displeases you as it goes against your conviction that under 30 year old people (the age you recommend) are not capable enough to be adequate candidates for Parliament. But it is a reality. 6) If you are elected to the Parliament, you will have to carry the voice of your constituents. To just ignore the expression of their voice discarding the result of the poll because it doesn't go with your own convictions, as a member of the Parliament, this would be failing to listen to them...
Jan 14, 02 / Jan 14, 18 23:46 UTC
Hi Ivan, Either I don´t express myself correctly or you don´t understand my posts. If my English is not good enough I apologize, I do my best but it is not my first language. Good idea to number the points. 1.- I never said "the poll didn't mention what lowering the age meant and that it could well be 30 or 35," What I said is that lowering the age is not the same as eliminating boundaries and allowing people to run from 18. I brought this numbers as a possibility to change the age if we need to cover all the positions if we don´t have enough candidates. 2.- It is just a poll. The majority of voters in the poll does not necessarily mean the majority of Asgardians. It means the majority in 0.8% of Asgardians. 3. I agree, Parliament should consider making voting compulsory. Less than 0,8% of Asgardians voted yes to changing the age to 18. To me this is not representative enough. 4. My argument: Polls are just a way to gather an opinion. The results may or may not be truly representative for different reasons. Many people are not inclined to participate, for example. Some of those would not do it because the subject is not important enough for them, because they don´t have an opinion or for other reasons. We could find many examples of polls that were not representative of real results (I am thinking elections...) We are almost 168,000 citizens. Less than 1,500 is not representative enough to make a final decision. 5. You are assuming I am displeased. You are completely wrong. The result the poll displayed do NOT displeases me. I have a different opinion but in no way I am displeased by anybody thinking different. From the first moment since I wrote my candidacy I said that I will support what the majority wants, wether I agree or not. I can not be upset particularly in something like this. If it was about nuclear weapons I would be upset, but not about age voting. It is not at the top of my list of priorities at all. I am open to change it, I am open to listen. My personal vote will be 35 years and I will happily accept and support the result of a referendum whatever that may be. 6. Yes, if I am a elected I will carry the voice of my constituents. This poll to me means that we need a referendum and that is what I will support. 7. I have something else to add here. ALL 168,000 citizens have accepted a Constitution that sets an age limit. This does not mean that we all agree with everything or we have to keep it as it is forever. However, I don´t think starting drastic changes (from 40 to 18 is drastic in my book) right now is the best thing to do. I know you think this is a priority because we don´t have enough candidates but I disagree.
Jan 17, 02 / Jan 17, 18 17:03 UTC
English is not my mother tongue either, hence our mutual misunderstandings, apparently :-) 1.- Thank you for this clarification. 2.- If people choose not to vote, at this time and place, it is their choice. Discarding the result of an official poll because “it is just a poll” is discarding the opinion of all the people who wanted to express their voice. Once more, that comment doesn’t appear to be very democratic, or does it? 3.- The poll was official. It makes its result evenly official. It was broadcast in the forum, on the many Facebook groups and on the Discord server. If only 1400+ people felt like they wanted to vote, that means we can rejoice to have 1400+ active users of the Asgardia.space website! I am not sure making voting compulsory would solve the problem of participation, actually. But that is for another debate the MPs will have to have at some point… 4.- I agree with you. A poll with less than 1,500 voters is not representative enough to make a final decision. But making a final decision was not the goal of such a poll: it was to get a sense of the general feeling of concerned citizens whether to change the age, cancel the elections, pursue them as they are, etc. As you mentioned, the Constitution set a rule but since a majority of the people who showed concern expressed their voice in saying that there should be a change, what do you do with the result of the poll? 5.- I now understand that you are not displeased. We both are over 40yo and as such, we are privileged. Would you have voted for the Constitution if the minimum age for Parliament would have been 60 years old? And if yes, would you feel it is fair to have set that age limit “above you”? How would you feel if all the 60+ eligible candidates would be saying that maybe it is too high and that to be fair, maybe it could be lowered to 55? Would you feel respected and heard? 6.- I am really glad that you voted for the petition above on this page. I actually thought you didn’t that’s why I wanted to clarify things with you. But now that I see that you agree the poll means that we need a referendum, since the petition on this page is calling for the referendum, your vote will be precious in that direction. Thank you for supporting the age change! <3 7.- Again, Helena, lowering the age to 18yo doesn’t mean every 18yo will be elected or will deserve my vote! Of course I will not vote for an 18yo who just say “Hey man, vote for me!”. Just like any other candidate, they will still need to prove me that they are sound, understanding and would be a worth addition to the Parliament. No way I would otherwise be voting for them! I just believe that they should be given the chance to represent the people and not just being kept aside for the sake of their age...
Jan 17, 02 / Jan 17, 18 22:11 UTC
2.- I am not discarding their opinion. I am listening and I am aware that a big part of a 0.8% would like to change the age limit. That´s all. It is not enough to move further at this time. 3.- Same as 2. It is official but it is a poll. That means many people chose not to participate and we need to take this into consideration. 4.- Same as 2. With the result of the poll I would make a plan for reviewing the age limit in the future. I understand not everybody agrees with it and we need to have a deeper discussion about it. We should be open to change it. I certainly am. I am glad we have an agreement. Less than 0.8% is not representative. 5.- Yes I would have voted for the constitution if limit was 60. It is a first attempt and it is not perfect. I focus on the big picture. As for feeling respected and heard, yes, If I have something to say I would say from any platform, or even as a civilian. We are not talking about personal agendas here. Wether I am a citizen only or I am in Parliament too, it is the majority that counts. We should have one voice. 6.- I didn´t vote for the petition. As I mentioned before, I don´t agree with 25. What I said is that looking at the fact that at least 0.7% of asgardians would like the limit to be lowered, we need to listen. I would support a referendum with different options, not just with one option. 7.- Believe me, I understand your point. I just don´t agree. At 18 nobody is ready to be a parliamentary. There are always exceptions, I know, but they are exactly that: exceptions. However, I totally agree, they should NOT be kept aside. They should have a voice and they should participate, just not from parliament. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss ideas and I value your input. Please don´t think it is personal or rude if I don't answer any more but I just feel we are going over and over the same points and I would prefer to move on to different subjects right now. I respect your opinion, and I will definitely support any changes driven by a majority of Asgardians.
Jan 28, 02 / Jan 28, 18 03:39 UTC
En quoi à 18 ou 19 ans les gens ne sont t'il pas prêts? L'âge ne veut rien dire,on peut vivre des choses qui rendent plus matures que des gens qui ont la vingtaine, l'âge n'est qu'une indication, mais rien d'autre
Feb 1, 02 / Jan 29, 18 08:46 UTC
a 18 ans on connait quasi rien de la vie, vu que jusque là c'est papa et maman qui s'occupaient de tout. Non c'est pas réaliste. POur voter, ok je dit pas ; mais pas pour être un élu.
Jan 19, 02 / Jan 19, 18 02:20 UTC
I firmly believe that anyone over the age of 19 can run for parliament would be fair and peaceful
Jan 19, 02 / Jan 19, 18 07:55 UTC
Thank you for your support, Luis! I find it interesting that you say "over the age of 19"... May I ask how old you are?
Jan 28, 02 / Jan 28, 18 03:39 UTC
Et égalitaire oui
Feb 1, 02 / Jan 29, 18 08:44 UTC
25 is too early! at least 30
Feb 1, 02 / Jan 29, 18 10:34 UTC
democracy works best with wider vote base but maturity counts the vote base must be degree based at least graduate
Feb 2, 02 / Jan 30, 18 12:32 UTC
Tl:Dr There should be as few restrictions on standing as a candidate as possible to allow for the broadest possible choice. The electorate can then decide who has the best qualifications to serve the community. In my opinion, the point of voting in a democracy is for the electorate to say which candidate is the best choice to represent them. I believe that societies work best when they are made up of a diverse range of leaders. With that in mind, I think the requirements for standing as a parliamentary candidate should be as minimal as possible and should be based solely on the ability to do the job; sufficient language skills to communicate with other members of Parliament and the wider population and a basic understanding of how the Parliament, legal systems etc work. This could possibly be assessed by a simple test/exam. All the other aspects of being suitable for doing the job would then be assessed by the electorate - when they cast their votes they are deciding that an individual has the maturity, moral values, education, life experience etc to adequately represent them.
Feb 17, 02 / Feb 14, 18 09:48 UTC
The preclusion imposed on people under 40 is a disgrace, plain and simple. Whoever dreamt that up is a deeply flawed individual, especially since, and let's be blunt, this enterprise is not really the natural province of people born before 1978. A better idea would however be to exclude candidates over the age of 60 to prevent cronyism and entrenched political obligations.
Mar 7, 02 / Mar 4, 18 18:18 UTC
How did this get declined? Limiting to 40+ is discriminatory right from the outset
Mar 12, 02 / Mar 9, 18 06:51 UTC
The 40+ rule is unfortunate and unfair, and must be changed. Please rerun this petition, it has my support.
Asg 23, 02 / Jul 10, 18 18:25 UTC
We are in the 21st century we should bring voting age down to the age of 16 if not to 18 years old