Papua New Guinea vs Sudan: Men's universal right to vote

Papua New Guinea
1
in 2025
Sudan
1
in 2025
Papua New Guinea rank
1st
Sudan rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Papua New Guinea
  • Sudan
00.20.40.60.81188419542025

How they compare

Papua New Guinea currently reports 1 against 1 in Sudan, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 127 shared years of data; in 1899 it was Sudan ahead.

Papua New Guinea ranks 1st and Sudan ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Papua New Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 14 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Papua New Guinea Sudan Difference Ahead
1890s 0 0 0 β€”
1900s 0 0 0 β€”
1910s 0 0 0 β€”
1920s 0 0 0 β€”
1930s 0 0 0 β€”
1940s 0 0 0 β€”
1950s 0.9 0.7 0.2 Papua New Guinea
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, Papua New Guinea or Sudan?
Papua New Guinea, at 1 against 1 in Sudan as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Papua New Guinea and Sudan?
0, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Sudan?
127 years are reported by both, from 1899 to 2025.
How do Papua New Guinea and Sudan rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Papua New Guinea ranks 1st and Sudan 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.