El Salvador vs Nauru: Men's universal right to vote

El Salvador
1
in 2025
Nauru
1
in 2025
El Salvador rank
1st
Nauru rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • El Salvador
  • Nauru
00.20.40.60.81183819312025

How they compare

El Salvador currently reports 1 against 1 in Nauru, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 138 shared years of data; in 1888 it was El Salvador ahead.

El Salvador ranks 1st and Nauru ranks 1st of 197 countries.

El Salvador has averaged higher in every one of the 15 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade El Salvador Nauru Difference Ahead
1880s 1 0 1 El Salvador
1890s 1 0 1 El Salvador
1900s 1 0 1 El Salvador
1910s 1 0 1 El Salvador
1920s 1 0 1 El Salvador
1930s 1 0 1 El Salvador
1940s 1 0 1 El Salvador
1950s 1 0.9 0.1 El Salvador
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, El Salvador or Nauru?
El Salvador, at 1 against 1 in Nauru as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between El Salvador and Nauru?
0, with El Salvador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for El Salvador and Nauru?
138 years are reported by both, from 1888 to 2025.
How do El Salvador and Nauru rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
El Salvador ranks 1st and Nauru 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.