Liechtenstein vs Namibia: Women's universal right to vote

Liechtenstein
1
in 2025
Namibia
1
in 2025
Liechtenstein rank
1st
Namibia rank
1st

Women's universal right to vote over time

  • Liechtenstein
  • Namibia
00.20.40.60.81181419192025

How they compare

Liechtenstein currently reports 1 against 1 in Namibia, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 142 shared years of data; in 1884 it was Namibia ahead.

Liechtenstein ranks 1st and Namibia ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Liechtenstein has averaged higher in every one of the 15 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Liechtenstein Namibia Difference Ahead
1880s 0 0 0 β€”
1890s 0 0 0 β€”
1900s 0 0 0 β€”
1910s 0 0 0 β€”
1920s 0 0 0 β€”
1930s 0 0 0 β€”
1940s 0 0 0 β€”
1950s 0 0 0 β€”
1960s 0 0 0 β€”
1970s 0 0 0 β€”
1980s 0.6 0 0.6 Liechtenstein
1990s 1 1 0 β€”
2000s 1 1 0 β€”
2010s 1 1 0 β€”
2020s 1 1 0 β€”

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher women's universal right to vote, Liechtenstein or Namibia?
Liechtenstein, at 1 against 1 in Namibia as of 2025.
What is the difference in women's universal right to vote between Liechtenstein and Namibia?
0, with Liechtenstein ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Liechtenstein and Namibia?
142 years are reported by both, from 1884 to 2025.
How do Liechtenstein and Namibia rank globally for women's universal right to vote?
Liechtenstein ranks 1st and Namibia ranks 1st of 197 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Women'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

Indicator
Women's universal right to vote
Source
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
198 places, 32,485 data points, 1789–2025
Last refreshed

Indicates whether all women are allowed to vote in national elections. It neither considers informal restrictions nor legal restrictions based on age, criminal conviction, disability, and local residency.