Bahamas vs North Macedonia: Men's universal right to vote

Bahamas
1
in 2025
North Macedonia
1
in 2025
Bahamas rank
1st
North Macedonia rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Bahamas
  • North Macedonia
00.20.40.60.81178919072025

How they compare

Bahamas currently reports 1 against 1 in North Macedonia, a difference of 0.

Across all 108 years both countries report, North Macedonia has been ahead every year.

Bahamas ranks 1st and North Macedonia ranks 1st of 197 countries.

North Macedonia has averaged higher in every one of the 12 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Bahamas North Macedonia Difference Ahead
1910s 0 0 0 β€”
1920s 0 1 1 North Macedonia
1930s 0 1 1 North Macedonia
1940s 0 1 1 North Macedonia
1950s 0.4 1 0.6 North Macedonia
1960s 1 1 0 β€”
1970s 1 1 0 β€”
1980s 1 1 0 β€”
1990s 1 1 0 β€”
2000s 1 1 0 β€”
2010s 1 1 0 β€”
2020s 1 1 0 β€”

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher men's universal right to vote, Bahamas or North Macedonia?
Bahamas, at 1 against 1 in North Macedonia as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Bahamas and North Macedonia?
0, with Bahamas ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Bahamas and North Macedonia?
108 years are reported by both, from 1918 to 2025.
How do Bahamas and North Macedonia rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Bahamas ranks 1st and North Macedonia ranks 1st of 197 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Men's universal right to vote. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Men's universal right to vote
Source
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
198 places, 32,485 data points, 1789–2025
Last refreshed

Indicates whether all men are allowed to vote in national elections. It neither considers informal restrictions nor legal restrictions based on age, criminal conviction, disability, and local residency.