Equatorial Guinea vs Laos: Universal right to vote
Equatorial Guinea
2
in 2025
Laos
2
in 2025
Equatorial Guinea rank
1st
Laos rank
1st
Universal right to vote over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Laos
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 2 against 2 in Laos, a difference of 0.
Across all 126 years both countries report, Laos has been ahead every year.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 1st and Laos ranks 1st of 198 countries.
Laos has averaged higher in every one of the 13 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Laos | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1900s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1910s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1920s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1930s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1940s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1950s | 0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | Laos |
| 1960s | 0.4 | 2 | 1.6 | Laos |
| 1970s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 1980s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 1990s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 2000s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 2020s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher universal right to vote, Equatorial Guinea or Laos?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 2 against 2 in Laos as of 2025.
- What is the difference in universal right to vote between Equatorial Guinea and Laos?
- 0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Laos?
- 126 years are reported by both, from 1900 to 2025.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Laos rank globally for universal right to vote?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 1st and Laos ranks 1st of 198 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as 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 virtually all men and women that are citizens are allowed to vote in national elections (score 2), whether it is only men (score 1), or there is no universal rights to vote for either men or women (score 0). It neither considers informal restrictions nor legal restrictions based on age, criminal conviction, disability, and local residency.