Papua New Guinea vs Suriname: Men's universal right to vote
Papua New Guinea
1
in 2025
Suriname
1
in 2025
Papua New Guinea rank
1st
Suriname rank
1st
Men's universal right to vote over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Suriname
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 1 against 1 in Suriname, a difference of 0.
Across all 142 years both countries report, Suriname has been ahead every year.
Papua New Guinea ranks 1st and Suriname ranks 1st of 197 countries.
Suriname has averaged higher in every one of the 15 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Suriname | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1890s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1900s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1910s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1920s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1930s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1940s | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | Suriname |
| 1950s | 0.9 | 1 | 0.1 | Suriname |
| 1960s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1970s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1980s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1990s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2000s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2020s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
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 Suriname?
- Papua New Guinea, at 1 against 1 in Suriname as of 2025.
- What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Papua New Guinea and Suriname?
- 0, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Suriname?
- 142 years are reported by both, from 1884 to 2025.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Suriname rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 1st and Suriname 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
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.