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

Costa Rica
1
in 2025
Finland
1
in 2025
Costa Rica rank
1st
Finland rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Costa Rica
  • Finland
00.20.40.60.81180919172025

How they compare

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

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

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

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Costa Rica Finland 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 0.4 0.4 Finland
1910s 0 1 1 Finland
1920s 0 1 1 Finland
1930s 0 1 1 Finland
1940s 0.1 1 0.9 Finland
1950s 1 1 0 β€”
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, Costa Rica or Finland?
Costa Rica, at 1 against 1 in Finland as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Costa Rica and Finland?
0, with Costa Rica ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Costa Rica and Finland?
188 years are reported by both, from 1838 to 2025.
How do Costa Rica and Finland rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Costa Rica ranks 1st and Finland 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.