Malaysia vs New Zealand: Competitive elections

Malaysia
1
in 2025
New Zealand
1
in 2025
Malaysia rank
1st
New Zealand rank
1st

Competitive elections over time

  • Malaysia
  • New Zealand
00.20.40.60.81184119332025

How they compare

Malaysia currently reports 1 against 1 in New Zealand, a difference of 0.

Across all 152 years both countries report, New Zealand has been ahead every year.

Malaysia ranks 1st and New Zealand ranks 1st of 197 countries.

New Zealand has averaged higher in every one of the 16 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Malaysia New Zealand Difference Ahead
1870s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1880s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1890s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1900s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1910s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1920s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1930s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1940s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1950s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1960s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1970s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1980s 0 1 1 New Zealand
1990s 0 1 1 New Zealand
2000s 0 1 1 New Zealand
2010s 0.2 1 0.8 New Zealand
2020s 1 1 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher competitive elections, Malaysia or New Zealand?
Malaysia, at 1 against 1 in New Zealand as of 2025.
What is the difference in competitive elections between Malaysia and New Zealand?
0, with Malaysia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Malaysia and New Zealand?
152 years are reported by both, from 1874 to 2025.
How do Malaysia and New Zealand rank globally for competitive elections?
Malaysia ranks 1st and New Zealand ranks 1st 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.