On the marriage equality result

Niall Clugston writes: Re: “Poll Bludger: the surprising patterns in marriage equality voting behaviour” (Wednesday)

I am not sure why Western Sydney produced such high No votes, but living in Parramatta, I saw no campaigning for same-sex marriage in Western Sydney. This was a complete contrast to the activity that was obvious in the inner city. Is it possible that the lack of campaigning affected the result?

Meredith Williams writes: Re: “Australia says Yes!” (Wednesday)

This is a fantastic achievement for the “Yes” campaign and a cause for exuberant celebration. But the journey to full equality is far from over, and it seems a timely coincidence that 16th November is International Day for Tolerance. When the tumult and shouting dies we remain positive and respectful, keep calm and carry on.

On the Daily Tele and Kristina Keneally

Edward Zakrzewski writes: Re “Tele relaunches an old war” How poor must Shorten’s judgement be to pick Keneally, who, given her connections with corruption, has no hope whatsoever of winning Bennelong. The real winner would have been Nathan Rees, if he can be persuaded to re-enter politics.

On Section 44

Joe Boswell writes: Re “Leave Section 44 well alone” (Wednesday)

Crikey has published several views against reform of section 44, including yesterday Barnes Graham, who said, “It is quite explicit and enforceable as it is.” Yes, but so what? If section 44 said candidates must chop off their right hands before standing, that too would be explicit and enforceable. Why not ask: What is it meant to do? Does it achieve that? And on balance does it do any good? As far as I can see it is hopeless at excluding candidates who are not loyal first to Australia’s interests and it does a lot more harm than good.