Belgium vs Cote d'Ivoire: Men's universal right to vote

Belgium
1
in 2025
Cote d'Ivoire
1
in 2025
Belgium rank
1st
Cote d'Ivoire rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Belgium
  • Cote d'Ivoire
00.20.40.60.81178919072025

How they compare

Belgium currently reports 1 against 1 in Cote d'Ivoire, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 133 shared years of data; in 1893 it was Cote d'Ivoire ahead.

Belgium ranks 1st and Cote d'Ivoire ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Belgium has averaged higher in every one of the 14 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Belgium Cote d'Ivoire Difference Ahead
1890s 0.8571 0 0.8571 Belgium
1900s 1 0 1 Belgium
1910s 1 0 1 Belgium
1920s 1 0 1 Belgium
1930s 1 0 1 Belgium
1940s 1 0 1 Belgium
1950s 1 0.3 0.7 Belgium
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, Belgium or Cote d'Ivoire?
Belgium, at 1 against 1 in Cote d'Ivoire as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Belgium and Cote d'Ivoire?
0, with Belgium ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Belgium and Cote d'Ivoire?
133 years are reported by both, from 1893 to 2025.
How do Belgium and Cote d'Ivoire rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Belgium ranks 1st and Cote d'Ivoire 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.