Uzbekistan vs Vietnam: Men's universal right to vote

Uzbekistan
1
in 2025
Vietnam
1
in 2025
Uzbekistan rank
1st
Vietnam rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Uzbekistan
  • Vietnam
00.20.40.60.81178919072025

How they compare

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

The two have swapped places 2 times across 129 shared years of data; in 1865 it was Vietnam ahead.

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

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Uzbekistan 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 Uzbekistan
1910s 1 0 1 Uzbekistan
1920s 1 0 1 Uzbekistan
1930s 1 0 1 Uzbekistan
1940s 1 0 1 Uzbekistan
1950s 1 0 1 Uzbekistan
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, Uzbekistan or Vietnam?
Uzbekistan, at 1 against 1 in Vietnam as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Uzbekistan and Vietnam?
0, with Uzbekistan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Uzbekistan and Vietnam?
129 years are reported by both, from 1865 to 2025.
How do Uzbekistan and Vietnam rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Uzbekistan 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.