electoral change is found in Boix ( 1999 ) who sees electoral change by ruling parties
being introduced in part to fend oVworse results under majoritarian systems.
A modern recent example may well be the French decision to abandon districts in
favor of PR for the 1986 elections because the socialists worried about seat loss.
Boix’s interpretation has come under criticism from scholars who tend to see
electoral change driven more by straightforward concerns over seat maximization
of the kind outlined by Benoit in his model of electoral system change (Andrews
and Jackman 2005 ; Blais, Dobrzynska, and Indridason 2005 ). But this disagreement
turns more on a diVerence in the kind and deWnition of self-interest at stake rather
than the self-interested motivations. Perhaps as exempliWed in the decision of the
French socialists to move back to districted systems after the 1986 election. 7
As Colomer notes, there are persistent patterns in the demand for change,
smaller parties tend to push towards proportionality, larger parties are much
more reluctant:
In general it can be postulated thatthe large will prefer the small and the small will prefer the
large. A few large parties will prefer small assemblies, small district magnitudes (the smallest
being one) and small quotas of votes for allocating seats (the smallest being simple
plurality, which does not require any speciWc threshold), in order to exclude others from
competition. Likewise, multiple small parties will prefer large assemblies, large district
magnitudes and large quotas (like those of proportional representation) able to include
them within. (Colomer 2005 , 2 )
The story of wholesale change in an electoral system is a complex one. The
default is that no change takes place and it is easy to see why. It seems we need a
more fully speciWed model of self-interest than the ones we have to date: self-
interest seems to provide ample motive for winners to keep the system as is. But
something must happen—either exogenous shocks or new calculations—to
make the system change and we do not, yet, have a good sense of what
those factors are.
5 Other Things Do Change... a Little
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
One way of approaching the question of change is to look not so much at the
system but at the supporting body of electoral laws. Most scholarly attention has
focused—quite rightly—on the relationship between seats and votes and the
7 Benoit himself uses the example of theWrst switch, not the switch back.electoral systems 589