THERE was some surprise from the regular punters in the bookies on Johnson Street, Blackburn, when I called in on Saturday to place my bets on the Grand National.

But I have always used that bookies, ever since the 1992 National, when I backed the aptly-named winner, Party Politics.

That race was in the midst of the General Election. My wager lightened what was otherwise a dismal campaign for my party.

I won again this Saturday, I’m happy to say.

The winner of the National, like any other race, is determined by which horse is ‘first past the post’.

It would be absurd to have any other method for judging success in a horse race. But is the same system – of first past the post – the best one for determining the outcome of elections?

That’s the question before the nation on Thursday, May 5, the same day as local elections.

The choice in the referendum is between first past the post, and the ‘alternative vote’ (AV). In this week’s column, and next, I’ll try to put the pros and cons of each.

I add this health warning: I have long, on balance, been in favour of AV, but I don’t subscribe to the overblown criticisms made of the current system.

The argument in favour of AV boils down to this: For an MP to have proper authority he or she should be certain of having the support of at least half the electorate. That was bound to happen when there were only two candidates standing. However, with three or more candidates, an MP can be elected on only a third of the votes.

Blackburn did have just two candidates at every General Election from 1951 to 1970 – but never since. Indeed in the past 20 years there have been at least six (and in 1997, nine) candidates.

With AV, an elector whose first choice can’t win, has their second and subsequent choice counted. Is that fairer?

And could it lead to odd results, with the candidate who few really want, winning?

Some answers next week.