Electoral Commission chairman Sam Younger

The country's chief elections watchdog has said there is no widespread appetite for lowering the voting age.

Electoral Commission chairman Sam Younger told ePolitix.com that even among young people there was scepticism over whether enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds would have a positive effect.

With election turnout declining, particularly among 18-30-year-olds, calls for a reduced voting age have become increasingly loud.

But in the interview Younger said that the initial results from a Commission consultation were not overwhelming.

"The thing that has struck us is that there is a wide range of views but no very clear cut view," he said.

"Even among young people, there is by no means any overwhelming majority on either side of the argument.

"We have found this in every forum where we have tested it in the form of a vote. For example, at an event in Cardiff, at the end of a discussion with assembly members, we asked the audience of 15-18 year olds to vote on whether there should be a reduction in the voting age and there was only a single vote majority for not reducing.

"When we pressed those that voted for not reducing the voting age, it came down to them feeling that they weren't informed or ready for it. Others are adamant that at 16 they are quite ready to take on the responsibility of voting."

Younger also said that calls for fixed term Westminster elections would not necessarily streamline the British voting system in the way proponents claim.

"The fact that there is a variable timetable for Westminster certainly does create complication," he said.

"But of course it's not only the variable term for Westminster which creates a complication. There is also the fact that local elections and the Scottish parliament, and the National Assembly in Wales are all on four-year cycles and the European parliament is on a five-year cycle.

"So even if you had fixed term elections for Westminster, it still wouldn't produce a completely uniform system.

"There is something attractive, in purely intellectual terms, in thinking you could have a four-year cycle for all elections with no two falling in the same year, but I don't think that we should be looking at things in terms of neatness. There are many other drivers there."

In a separate move the Electoral Reform Society, which champions proportional representation, has said that fairer votes would stop the extreme right getting a hold on local authorities.

The pressure group said on Tuesday that first past the post elections had contributed to the BNP winning seats on Burnley Council.

The Society also claimed in a new report that the anti-immigration party could win control of the council without earning a majority of votes.

Chief executive Ken Ritchie said that a proportional voting system would prevent this scenario and urged all parties to support the introduction of a single transferable vote system for local elections.

"Last year the BNP won six seats in the 12 wards it contested in spite of having received little more than a third of the votes in these seats," he said.

"If people vote the same way this year, the BNP will win a further six seats, and in the following election we could see the BNP holding 100 per cent of the seats in these wards with only a third of the vote.

"In Burnley there is a strong case for proportional representation, and the system we would recommend is STV - the Single Transferable Vote.

"At present the votes of many people who oppose racism are wasted on losing candidates, but STV would allow those votes to be transferred to other candidates opposed to extremism. Using STV, the BNP would win only those seats which its electoral strength justifies."