The current electoral system has been constantly assessed and targeted by civilians who believe that First Past The Post is no longer effective and should be gotten rid of. Even though it lost in the 2011 referendum, People still believe the electoral system should be changed, especially the liberal democrats who are in favour of this change because they would benefit.
FPTP is a simple plurality system the candidate with the most votes in one constituency becomes a MP and then the party with the most MPs becomes the government.

The first reason i think the electoral system should be reformed is that the system is very unrepresentative as large mainstream parties with their supporters concentrated in certain constituencies do well and win. For example the constituency of Buckingham is highly populated with conservative supporters meaning that any other people living in that area who want to vote for labour or any other parties will continuously lose, so their votes are wasted and even more votes are wasted if losing parties' supporters are spread out rather than concentrated making it unfair especially to fringe parties.
However, even though it can be seen as unrepresentative, it is quote an efficient method as it usually guarantees that one party will win the majority and become the government making it easier to pass laws in parliament unless there is a coalition which would lead to clashes in ideas.

Another argument for reform is that minority governments are formed. This is where any party can form government without 50% of the votes as a minority in the commons. An example of this would be in the 2010 elections where the conservatives got 36% of the votes. They had the most, but not the majority so more people voted against them but they still won anyway meaning they aren't a mandate government and would find it harder to pass bills in parliament because there are more parties against them. This then lead to a coalition, where the conservative linked up with the liberal democrats to make a majority.
However, out of all the other different voting systems, FPTP is the easiest and most efficient method. It is also easier for the public to understand helping them feel like they can hold government to account also some people see coalitions as a good thing because rather than one set of ideas being passed around the table, there are two which helps benefit the people because the two leaders will usually meet in the middle with the public's interest in mind because both parties will want to increase their popularity and with two parties, bills will be thoroughly scrutinised benefiting the public once again.
Another argument in favour of the reform is the abuse of the ratio of seats per vote. For example in 2010, conservatives got only 36% of the votes but got nearly half of the seats in the commons with 47% whilst parties like the liberal democrats suffer as they got 23% of the votes but only 9% of the seats even though they got nearly a quarter of the votes and other fringe parties witha tenth of the votes together only get 4% showing the unfair method in the house of commons whereas systems like closed party list ( a proportional representation system) ensures that the number of votes received by each party is equal to the number of seats. for example is a party gets 20% of the votes, they get 30% of the seats which is a much fairer system. Also the proportional seating in FPTP is also quite difficult for the public to understand.
However FPTP does help prevent extremist parties like the BNP from gaining seats in the commons and influencing bills.

In conclusion First Past The Post has a lot of advantages that outweigh its disadvantages as although it doesn't always give a proportional outcome, but it is the easiest method and is the easiest and most efficient to understand also the public seem to like as the referendum was defeated by a large majority showing the UK is happy with the current electoral system and it also provides a clear and strong constituency link which is an important feature for a democracy.