Jordan vs Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Men's universal right to vote

Jordan
1
in 2025
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
1
in 2025
Jordan rank
1st
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Jordan
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
00.20.40.60.81192219732025

How they compare

Jordan currently reports 1 against 1 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a difference of 0.

Across all 75 years both countries report, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has been ahead every year.

Jordan ranks 1st and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Jordan Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Difference Ahead
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, Jordan or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
Jordan, at 1 against 1 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Jordan and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
0, with Jordan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Jordan and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
75 years are reported by both, from 1951 to 2025.
How do Jordan and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Jordan ranks 1st and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 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.