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. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published