Kiribati vs Portugal: Universal right to vote
Kiribati
2
in 2025
Portugal
2
in 2025
Kiribati rank
1st
Portugal rank
1st
Universal right to vote over time
- Kiribati
- Portugal
How they compare
Kiribati currently reports 2 against 2 in Portugal, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 134 shared years of data; in 1892 it was Portugal ahead.
Kiribati ranks 1st and Portugal ranks 1st of 198 countries.
Kiribati has averaged higher in every one of the 14 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kiribati | Portugal | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1890s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1900s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1910s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1920s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1930s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1940s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1950s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1960s | 1.2 | 0 | 1.2 | Kiribati |
| 1970s | 2 | 1 | 1 | Kiribati |
| 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, Kiribati or Portugal?
- Kiribati, at 2 against 2 in Portugal as of 2025.
- What is the difference in universal right to vote between Kiribati and Portugal?
- 0, with Kiribati ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kiribati and Portugal?
- 134 years are reported by both, from 1892 to 2025.
- How do Kiribati and Portugal rank globally for universal right to vote?
- Kiribati ranks 1st and Portugal 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.