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

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

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Taiwan
00.20.40.60.81189519602025

How they compare

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

Across all 75 years both countries report, Taiwan has been ahead every year.

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

Head to head by decade

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