narratives” that are often used to explain our social world in its entirety.
According to post modernists, it is impossible to generalize social phenomenon
because the social world is not a uniform homogeneity of beliefs and values,
but instead it is contextual and fragmented. Post modernists challenge “binary
opposites” and categories because they create limited choice. According to
Bauman, limited categories put us in a state of ambivalence due to conflicting
feelings between the limited choices we are given, and the possibilities that
lie outside of these categories. Furthermore, according to Baudrillard, we have
gotten caught up in the signs we use in the social world, and have lost touch
with the real meaning behind these signs. I relate this to the bipartisan
system in the US; the notion that the correct course our country must take can
be generalized into just a couple conflicting categories is limiting and
divides the nation by forcing people to obsess over signs associated with
certain political ideologies.
For a long time, I have been put off by American politics because
of the narrow-minded obsession with party duality. The question is “are you
‘red’ or ‘blue?” “Are you on the left or the right?” Even if you associate with
a moderate standpoint you are still limited to some combination of these two
beliefs. Just picture the typical political spectrum, with liberal democrat
ideology to the left and conservative republican to the right; there are
certain“beliefs” that you associate with these signs. Why are these the only
options that are considered even mentioning in the political arena?
Preferential voting, also referred to as ranked-voting or
runoff-voting, allows voters to vote for more than one candidate using a
ranking system based on their preference. This video explains this very well,
using adorable animals to help you conceptualize it!
voting. Strategic voting occurs because, while there may be other parties on
the ballot, there is no doubt that one of the two major parties will be
elected. So, voters who want to vote for a third party candidate end up
choosing one of the two most popular candidates in order to avoid the least
desired one to win. I often hear people refer to this as voting for the “lesser
of two evils.” This term, “lesser of two evils,” reminds me of Bauman’s
perspective on ambivalence. Voters are conflicted between choosing a popular
category that they find most tolerable, and choosing something that does not lie
within the popular categories at all. By choosing the “lesser of two evils,”
voters feel a sense of certainty because they know that candidate has a good
chance of winning. If a voter were to vote for a third party candidate they
truly support, they would feel a great sense of uncertainty because it is very
unlikely that a third party candidate will win the popular vote.