Mongolia vs San Marino: Universal right to vote
Mongolia
2
in 2025
San Marino
2
in 2025
Mongolia rank
1st
San Marino rank
1st
Universal right to vote over time
- Mongolia
- San Marino
How they compare
Mongolia currently reports 2 against 2 in San Marino, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 115 shared years of data; in 1911 it was San Marino ahead.
Mongolia ranks 1st and San Marino ranks 1st of 198 countries.
Across the 12 decades both report, Mongolia averaged higher in 4 and San Marino in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mongolia | San Marino | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1910s | 0 | 1 | 1 | San Marino |
| 1920s | 1.2 | 1 | 0.2 | Mongolia |
| 1930s | 2 | 1 | 1 | Mongolia |
| 1940s | 2 | 1 | 1 | Mongolia |
| 1950s | 2 | 1.3 | 0.7 | Mongolia |
| 1960s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 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, Mongolia or San Marino?
- Mongolia, at 2 against 2 in San Marino as of 2025.
- What is the difference in universal right to vote between Mongolia and San Marino?
- 0, with Mongolia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mongolia and San Marino?
- 115 years are reported by both, from 1911 to 2025.
- How do Mongolia and San Marino rank globally for universal right to vote?
- Mongolia ranks 1st and San Marino 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.