Sweden vs Trinidad and Tobago: Competitive elections

Sweden
1
in 2025
Trinidad and Tobago
1
in 2025
Sweden rank
1st
Trinidad and Tobago rank
1st

Competitive elections over time

  • Sweden
  • Trinidad and Tobago
00.20.40.60.81178919072025

How they compare

Sweden currently reports 1 against 1 in Trinidad and Tobago, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 137 shared years of data; in 1889 it was Trinidad and Tobago ahead.

Sweden ranks 1st and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 1st of 197 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Sweden Trinidad and Tobago Difference Ahead
1880s 0 0 0 β€”
1890s 0 0 0 β€”
1900s 0 0 0 β€”
1910s 0.3 0 0.3 Sweden
1920s 1 0 1 Sweden
1930s 1 0 1 Sweden
1940s 1 0 1 Sweden
1950s 1 0 1 Sweden
1960s 1 0.8 0.2 Sweden
1970s 1 1 0 β€”
1980s 1 1 0 β€”
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 competitive elections, Sweden or Trinidad and Tobago?
Sweden, at 1 against 1 in Trinidad and Tobago as of 2025.
What is the difference in competitive elections between Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago?
0, with Sweden ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago?
137 years are reported by both, from 1889 to 2025.
How do Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for competitive elections?
Sweden ranks 1st and Trinidad and Tobago 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.