Abstract
To most, electoral reforms are motivated by the self‐interest of parties. They compare the outcome of several electoral rules and choose the one that maximises their share of seats. The problem with this ‘seat‐maximising’ or ‘office‐seeking’ model is that it does not explain why electoral reforms are rare. In most countries, status quo is the favoured option for parties. If parties were simply guided by the hope of gaining extra seats, we would expect to observe more reform proposals. The reason for the stability of electoral rules is that parties are not always ‘bankers’; they are sometimes ‘peasants’. Before going into a risky reform, they will first assess how satisfied they are with the extant electoral laws. Only those that are dissatisfied with the political influence they have will push for a reform.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
