Montenegro vs Samoa: Universal right to vote
Montenegro
2
in 2025
Samoa
2
in 2025
Montenegro rank
1st
Samoa rank
1st
Universal right to vote over time
- Montenegro
- Samoa
How they compare
Montenegro currently reports 2 against 2 in Samoa, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 121 shared years of data; in 1902 it was Samoa ahead.
Montenegro ranks 1st and Samoa ranks 1st of 198 countries.
Montenegro has averaged higher in every one of the 13 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Montenegro | Samoa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1900s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1910s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1920s | 1 | 0 | 1 | Montenegro |
| 1930s | 1 | 0 | 1 | Montenegro |
| 1940s | 1.5 | 0 | 1.5 | Montenegro |
| 1950s | 2 | 0 | 2 | Montenegro |
| 1960s | 2 | 0 | 2 | Montenegro |
| 1970s | 2 | 0 | 2 | Montenegro |
| 1980s | 2 | 0 | 2 | Montenegro |
| 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, Montenegro or Samoa?
- Montenegro, at 2 against 2 in Samoa as of 2025.
- What is the difference in universal right to vote between Montenegro and Samoa?
- 0, with Montenegro ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Montenegro and Samoa?
- 121 years are reported by both, from 1902 to 2025.
- How do Montenegro and Samoa rank globally for universal right to vote?
- Montenegro ranks 1st and Samoa 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.