Political Parties
Conservative Party The Conservatives are the strongest defenders of First Past the Post. Their argument centres on the strong, stable single-party government FPTP tends to produce, avoiding the “backroom deals” and coalition horse-trading associated with PR systems.
They also stress the constituency link, arguing that FPTP gives voters a clear, identifiable local MP who is directly accountable to them.
Critics note that the Conservatives have often been direct beneficiaries of FPTP’s disproportionality (for example, the 2019 landslide on around 43.6% of the vote), which gives them a strong institutional incentive to defend the status quo.
Labour Party Labour’s position has historically been more ambivalent. The party has also benefited from FPTP landslides (1997, 2001, 2024), so many within the leadership are reluctant to abandon a system that can deliver commanding majorities from a minority of the vote.
However, a significant and growing faction within Labour, including affiliated trade unions and constituency parties, has passed conference motions in favour of PR, arguing it would better reflect progressive values and prevent future Conservative governments winning large majorities on a minority of the vote.
Liberal Democrats The Liberal Democrats are the most consistent and vocal supporters of electoral reform, specifically the Single Transferable Vote (STV).
Their argument is rooted in fairness: FPTP has repeatedly punished them, with their vote share translating into a much smaller share of seats (a clear case study is 2015, where UKIP and the Lib Dems together won around a quarter of the vote but a tiny fraction of seats).
They argue PR would end “wasted votes” and better represent the diversity of political opinion in the country.
Smaller and Regional Parties (Green Party, Reform UK, SNP, Plaid Cymru) Smaller parties with dispersed support, such as the Greens and Reform UK, are strong advocates for PR because FPTP structurally disadvantages parties whose vote is spread thinly across the country rather than concentrated in winnable seats.
The SNP presents an interesting case: because their support is geographically concentrated in Scotland, FPTP has actually worked in their favour at Westminster (e.g. 2015, winning 56 of 59 Scottish seats on 50% of the Scottish vote), so their enthusiasm for reform is more selective and tends to focus on Scottish independence rather than the voting system itself.
Pressure and Interest Groups
Make Votes Matter / Electoral Reform Society These are the leading pressure groups campaigning for PR in the UK.
Make Votes Matter campaigns specifically for a proportional system for Westminster elections, arguing that FPTP produces “unrepresentative” governments, encourages tactical voting, creates large numbers of “safe seats” where turnout and engagement fall, and locks smaller parties out of Parliament despite significant public support.
The Electoral Reform Society has campaigned for reform since 1884 and produces detailed analysis after every general election showing the gap between vote share and seat share.
Fairer Vote / Unlock Democracy These groups make a broader democratic case, arguing that FPTP contributes to political disengagement, particularly among younger voters, because a vote in a safe seat can feel meaningless.
They link electoral reform to wider constitutional questions about trust in politics and representation.
Defenders of FPTP (e.g. some constitutional think tanks) Some groups, alongside sections of the Conservative Party, argue that the simplicity and clear accountability of FPTP outweighs its disproportionality.
They point to the coalition and confidence-and-supply arrangements produced in more proportional systems elsewhere (such as Germany or Israel) as evidence that PR can lead to weak, unstable, or gridlocked government, and that voters often struggle to identify who is actually “in charge” after an election under PR.
The Press
Right-leaning press (Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Sun) These outlets have generally defended FPTP, echoing Conservative arguments about stability, strong government and the constituency link.
They have often been sceptical of PR, framing it as a system that would hand disproportionate power to smaller, sometimes extreme, parties and lead to “coalition chaos” akin to some continental European examples.
Left-leaning and centrist press (The Guardian, The Independent, The Mirror) These outlets have been more sympathetic to reform, particularly The Guardian, which has run extensive coverage and comment pieces on the disproportionality of FPTP results, the number of “wasted votes”, and the case for PR strengthening democratic legitimacy.
Coverage tends to intensify after elections with particularly skewed results (2015 and 2024 are commonly cited).
Broadcast media (BBC, Sky News, ITV) Broadcasters are bound by Ofcom’s impartiality rules, so their coverage of the FPTP/PR debate tends to be more balanced, typically presenting the arguments of both reform campaigners and defenders of the status quo, often around general election results and referendum moments (such as the 2011 AV referendum).
Key Point for Essays
When answering questions on this debate, it is worth noting that positions are rarely principled alone.
They are heavily shaped by self-interest: parties and groups tend to support the system that best serves their own electoral prospects.
This is a useful evaluative point for A-level answers, since it allows you to interrogate the motives behind each stakeholder’s stated position rather than taking their arguments at face value.