Cote d'Ivoire vs Nicaragua: Competitive elections

Cote d'Ivoire
0
in 2025
Nicaragua
0
in 2025
Cote d'Ivoire rank
116th
Nicaragua rank
116th

Competitive elections over time

  • Cote d'Ivoire
  • Nicaragua
00.20.40.60.81183819312025

How they compare

Cote d'Ivoire currently reports 0 against 0 in Nicaragua, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 133 shared years of data; in 1893 it was Nicaragua ahead.

Cote d'Ivoire ranks 116th and Nicaragua ranks 116th of 197 countries.

Across the 14 decades both report, Cote d'Ivoire averaged higher in 1 and Nicaragua in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cote d'Ivoire Nicaragua Difference Ahead
1890s 0 0 0 β€”
1900s 0 0 0 β€”
1910s 0 0 0 β€”
1920s 0 0.2 0.2 Nicaragua
1930s 0 0.6 0.6 Nicaragua
1940s 0 0 0 β€”
1950s 0 0 0 β€”
1960s 0 0 0 β€”
1970s 0 0 0 β€”
1980s 0 0 0 β€”
1990s 0 1 1 Nicaragua
2000s 0 1 1 Nicaragua
2010s 0.9 0.6 0.3 Cote d'Ivoire
2020s 0 0 0 β€”

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher competitive elections, Cote d'Ivoire or Nicaragua?
Cote d'Ivoire, at 0 against 0 in Nicaragua as of 2025.
What is the difference in competitive elections between Cote d'Ivoire and Nicaragua?
0, with Cote d'Ivoire ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cote d'Ivoire and Nicaragua?
133 years are reported by both, from 1893 to 2025.
How do Cote d'Ivoire and Nicaragua rank globally for competitive elections?
Cote d'Ivoire ranks 116th and Nicaragua ranks 116th of 197 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Competitive elections. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Competitive elections
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

Whether the outcomes of elections are uncertain because their timing is not violated, voters are not systematically coerced, and election fraud is not consequential.