Luxembourg vs Uzbekistan: Men's universal right to vote

Luxembourg
1
in 2025
Uzbekistan
1
in 2025
Luxembourg rank
1st
Uzbekistan rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Luxembourg
  • Uzbekistan
00.20.40.60.81181519202025

How they compare

Luxembourg currently reports 1 against 1 in Uzbekistan, a difference of 0.

Across all 151 years both countries report, Uzbekistan has been ahead every year.

Luxembourg ranks 1st and Uzbekistan ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Uzbekistan has averaged higher in every one of the 17 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Luxembourg Uzbekistan Difference Ahead
1860s 0 0 0 β€”
1870s 0 0 0 β€”
1880s 0 0 0 β€”
1890s 0 0 0 β€”
1900s 0 0.5 0.5 Uzbekistan
1910s 0 1 1 Uzbekistan
1920s 1 1 0 β€”
1930s 1 1 0 β€”
1940s 1 1 0 β€”
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, Luxembourg or Uzbekistan?
Luxembourg, at 1 against 1 in Uzbekistan as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Luxembourg and Uzbekistan?
0, with Luxembourg ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Luxembourg and Uzbekistan?
151 years are reported by both, from 1865 to 2025.
How do Luxembourg and Uzbekistan rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Luxembourg ranks 1st and Uzbekistan 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.