Mongolia vs Sao Tome and Principe: Competitive elections

Mongolia
1
in 2025
Sao Tome and Principe
1
in 2025
Mongolia rank
1st
Sao Tome and Principe rank
1st

Competitive elections over time

  • Mongolia
  • Sao Tome and Principe
00.20.40.60.81178919072025

How they compare

Mongolia currently reports 1 against 1 in Sao Tome and Principe, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 115 shared years of data; in 1911 it was Sao Tome and Principe ahead.

Mongolia ranks 1st and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Mongolia has averaged higher in every one of the 12 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Mongolia Sao Tome and Principe Difference Ahead
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 0 0 β€”
1990s 1 0.9 0.1 Mongolia
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 competitive elections, Mongolia or Sao Tome and Principe?
Mongolia, at 1 against 1 in Sao Tome and Principe as of 2025.
What is the difference in competitive elections between Mongolia and Sao Tome and Principe?
0, with Mongolia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Mongolia and Sao Tome and Principe?
115 years are reported by both, from 1911 to 2025.
How do Mongolia and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for competitive elections?
Mongolia ranks 1st and Sao Tome and Principe 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.