Moldova vs New Zealand: Men's universal right to vote

Moldova
1
in 2025
New Zealand
1
in 2025
Moldova rank
1st
New Zealand rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Moldova
  • New Zealand
00.20.40.60.81180019122025

How they compare

Moldova currently reports 1 against 1 in New Zealand, a difference of 0.

Across all 165 years both countries report, New Zealand has been ahead every year.

Moldova ranks 1st and New Zealand ranks 1st of 197 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Moldova New Zealand Difference Ahead
1840s 0 0 0 β€”
1850s 0 0 0 β€”
1860s 0 0 0 β€”
1870s 0 0.1 0.1 New Zealand
1880s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1890s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1900s 0.5 1 0.5 New Zealand
1910s 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, Moldova or New Zealand?
Moldova, at 1 against 1 in New Zealand as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Moldova and New Zealand?
0, with Moldova ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Moldova and New Zealand?
165 years are reported by both, from 1841 to 2025.
How do Moldova and New Zealand rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Moldova ranks 1st and New Zealand 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.