Tajikistan vs Vietnam: Men's universal right to vote

Tajikistan
1
in 2025
Vietnam
1
in 2025
Tajikistan rank
1st
Vietnam rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Tajikistan
  • Vietnam
00.20.40.60.81178919072025

How they compare

Tajikistan currently reports 1 against 1 in Vietnam, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 136 shared years of data; in 1868 it was Vietnam ahead.

Tajikistan ranks 1st and Vietnam ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Tajikistan has averaged higher in every one of the 16 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Tajikistan Vietnam Difference Ahead
1860s 0 0 0 β€”
1870s 0 0 0 β€”
1880s 0 0 0 β€”
1890s 0 0 0 β€”
1900s 0.5 0 0.5 Tajikistan
1910s 1 0 1 Tajikistan
1920s 1 0 1 Tajikistan
1930s 1 0 1 Tajikistan
1940s 1 0 1 Tajikistan
1950s 1 0 1 Tajikistan
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, Tajikistan or Vietnam?
Tajikistan, at 1 against 1 in Vietnam as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Tajikistan and Vietnam?
0, with Tajikistan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Tajikistan and Vietnam?
136 years are reported by both, from 1868 to 2025.
How do Tajikistan and Vietnam rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Tajikistan ranks 1st and Vietnam 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.