Sir, – The debate following Catherine Connolly’s landslide victory at the weekend has become a row about the presidential nomination process. Two things can be true: some actors are exploiting the moment to advance their agenda, and the process may also be unnecessarily exclusionary.

That said, none of the alternatives proposed so far would strengthen democracy. Requiring 50,000 or 100,000 signatures to secure a nomination would risk inviting fraud, abuse and populism.

One of the few stabilising features of our Constitution is that anyone seeking the presidency must have an element of political support. It is not perfect, but it provides an important safeguard.

Those who now feel excluded from the system may be experiencing, perhaps for the first time, what many minorities have long felt, that their worldview is not always reflected in the choices before them at the ballot box. That is part of living in a tolerant, pluralist democracy.

We should not be opposed to reform, or to a conversation about reform, but the current proposals are unworkable and risk undermining democratic stability.

What is needed is a Citizens’ Assembly to examine the nomination process and design a model that’s fair, functional, and fit for the next 100 years, one that protects both the presidency and the Republic.

Equality often asks those who have long held privilege to give something up, and that can feel uncomfortable. But discomfort is not oppression, and progress depends on our willingness to face it. – Yours, etc,

OISÍN O’REILLY,

Chief executive officer,

Outhouse LGBTQ+ Centre,

Dublin 1.

Sir, – While the youth can have a wonderful energy for idealism, older people can have a wonderful energy for wisdom. Therein lies the mystery of election results. – Yours, etc,

MARY BARRETT,

Raheny,

Dublin.

Sir, – A letter in your paper recently said that a spoiled vote is akin to silence dressed up as action (October 22nd).