On marriage equality and online voting

Robert Merkel writes:  Re. “If we have to vote on marriage equality, can’t we do it online?” (Friday)

Sam Campbell, in his article promoting the use of his company’s iVote system for the upcoming “Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey”, has omitted to mention repeated security problems with iVote in its use in Australian state elections.

In 2015, academics Vanessa Teague and J. Alex Halderman found a serious security flaw in the iVote system, as used for the NSW state election. This weakness could have been could be used to manipulate votes, and required the system to be “patched” during the election process itself.  Modifying an election system during the vote is in itself a serious risk to the integrity of the election.

In 2017, another team of Australian researchers found that the iVote system being used for the Western Australian state election had a combination of weaknesses in the iVote protocol, and its use of DDOS protection services.  Again, this could have been be used to fraudulently record votes.  

In both cases, these were regular elections run by their state electoral bodies, with plenty of time to customise, configure, audit, and test iVote.  And yet, in both cases, serious integrity problems were identified with iVote.  The odds of a problem cropping up and not being caught given the absurdly tight timelines of the “marriage law postal survey” would surely be higher.   

Furthermore, the emotions — on both sides — that the survey has already stirred up are likely to increase the chances that hotheads will attempt to manipulate the vote.

Numerous problems have already been identified with the postal survey, including its conduct in the absence of the normal laws criminalizing manipulation of AEC-run counts.  Even so, replacing a hastily-designed postal survey with an online system implemented in even greater haste is substituting the bad for the potentially catastrophic.

Megan Stoyles writes: Re. “If we have to vote on marriage equality, can’t we do it online?” (Friday)

Centrelink encourages all its customers, including pensioners, to go online to do business with it; The Bureau of Statistics similarly encouraged people to lodge their Census details on line.

With these precedents, it seems churlish not to allow and encourage online voting on the Same Sex Marriage plebiscite — at the very least it would save the costs of a campaign to advise the  location of polling places, known to the oldies  as post boxes.

On the “peoples right” to have a say on marriage equality

Jock Webb writes: Re. “The Australian people deserve a say in the re-definition of marriage”  (Friday)

Michael Byrne is certainly confused about the history of Christian marriage in Western Civilisation (Hmmmm). The rights of women in marriage choices were non-existent for most of Christian history. There is absolutely no doubt that today’s marriage system has “rights” as a fundamental underpinning and that Christianity, often in apparent contradiction of its founder, has trampled on the rights of women in marriage and everywhere else, most odiously in recent times in regard to domestic violence.

I feel privileged to have been married for over 40 years, but it was not a religious marriage. Many faiths still oppress the rights of women in marriage. Begone with this cant. Marriage is a civil right. 

James Burke writes: Re. “The Australian people deserve a say in the re-definition of marriage”  (Friday)

Michael Byrne is right – for centuries the Church has intervened to aid the cause of “romantic love”. Like when that old softie Pius V granted a papal dispensation to King Philip the Second of pain. This allowed Phil to marry – and make sweet, romantic, Christian, procreative love to – his own niece, Anna. Still, man marries woman: nothing to see here, eh?