Georgia vs East Timor: Men's universal right to vote
Georgia
1
in 2025
East Timor
1
in 2025
Georgia rank
1st
East Timor rank
1st
Men's universal right to vote over time
- Georgia
- East Timor
How they compare
Georgia currently reports 1 against 1 in East Timor, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 167 shared years of data; in 1859 it was East Timor ahead.
Georgia ranks 1st and East Timor ranks 1st of 198 countries.
Georgia has averaged higher in every one of the 18 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Georgia | East Timor | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1850s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1860s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1870s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1880s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1890s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1900s | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | Georgia |
| 1910s | 1 | 0 | 1 | Georgia |
| 1920s | 1 | 0 | 1 | Georgia |
| 1930s | 1 | 0 | 1 | Georgia |
| 1940s | 1 | 0 | 1 | Georgia |
| 1950s | 1 | 0.7 | 0.3 | Georgia |
| 1960s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1970s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1980s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1990s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2000s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2020s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher men's universal right to vote, Georgia or East Timor?
- Georgia, at 1 against 1 in East Timor as of 2025.
- What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Georgia and East Timor?
- 0, with Georgia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Georgia and East Timor?
- 167 years are reported by both, from 1859 to 2025.
- How do Georgia and East Timor rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
- Georgia ranks 1st and East Timor ranks 1st of 198 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
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.