Cambodia vs Costa Rica: Men's universal right to vote

Cambodia
1
in 2025
Costa Rica
1
in 2025
Cambodia rank
1st
Costa Rica rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Cambodia
  • Costa Rica
00.20.40.60.81178919072025

How they compare

Cambodia currently reports 1 against 1 in Costa Rica, a difference of 0.

Across all 188 years both countries report, Costa Rica has been ahead every year.

Cambodia ranks 1st and Costa Rica ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Costa Rica has averaged higher in every one of the 20 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cambodia Costa Rica Difference Ahead
1830s 0 0 0 β€”
1840s 0 0 0 β€”
1850s 0 0 0 β€”
1860s 0 0 0 β€”
1870s 0 0 0 β€”
1880s 0 0 0 β€”
1890s 0 0 0 β€”
1900s 0 0 0 β€”
1910s 0 0 0 β€”
1920s 0 0 0 β€”
1930s 0 0 0 β€”
1940s 0 0.1 0.1 Costa Rica
1950s 0.4 1 0.6 Costa Rica
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, Cambodia or Costa Rica?
Cambodia, at 1 against 1 in Costa Rica as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Cambodia and Costa Rica?
0, with Cambodia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cambodia and Costa Rica?
188 years are reported by both, from 1838 to 2025.
How do Cambodia and Costa Rica rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Cambodia ranks 1st and Costa Rica 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.