text:
Two-party system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part of the Politics series
Party politics
Political spectrum
Left-wing
Far-left
Centre-left
Centre
Centre-left
Radical centre
Centre-right
Right-wing
Centre-right
Far-right
Party platform
Extremist
Radical
Progressive
Reformist
Liberal
Moderate
Syncretic
Third Position
Conservative
Reactionary
Traditionalist
Party system
Non-partisan
One-party
Dominant-party
Two-party
Multi-party
Coalition
Hung parliament
Confidence and supply
Minority government
Rainbow coalition
Grand coalition
Full coalition
National unity government
Majority government
Lists
Ruling parties by country
Political parties by UN geoscheme
Political ideologies
Politics portal
v
t
e
Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics[show]
Index of politics articles
Politics by country
Politics by subdivision
Political economy
Political history
Political history of the world
Political philosophy
Political systems[show]
Anarchy
City-state
Democracy
Dictatorship
Directory
Federacy
Feudalism
Meritocracy
Monarchy
Parliamentary
Presidential
Republic
Semi-parliamentary
Semi-presidential
Theocracy
Academic disciplines[show]
Political science
(political scientists)
International relations
(theory)
Comparative politics
Public administration[show]
Bureaucracy (street-level)
Adhocracy
Policy[show]
Public policy (doctrine)
Domestic and foreign policy
Civil society
Public interest
Organs of government[show]
Separation of powers
Legislature
Executive
Judiciary
Election commission
Related topics[show]
Sovereignty
Theories of political behavior
Political psychology
Biology and political orientation
Political organisations
Foreign electoral intervention
Subseries[show]
Electoral systems
Elections (voting)
Federalism
Form of government
Ideology
Political campaigning
Political parties
Politics Portal
v
t
e
A two-party system is a party system where two major political parties[1] dominate the government. One of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature and is usually referred to as the majority or governing party while the other is the minority or opposition party. Around the world, the term has different senses. For example, in the United States, Jamaica, and Malta, the sense of two party system describes an arrangement in which all or nearly all elected officials belong to one of the only two major parties, and third parties rarely win any seats in the legislature. In such arrangements, two-party systems are thought to result from various factors like winner takes all election rules.[2][3][4][5][6][7] In such systems, while chances for third party candidates winning election to major national office are remote, it is possible for groups within the larger parties, or in opposition to one or both of them, to exert influence on the two major parties.[8][9][10][11][12][13] In contrast, in the United Kingdom and Australia and in other parliamentary systems and elsewhere, the term two-party system is sometimes used to indicate an arrangement in which two major parties dominate elections but in which there are viable third parties which do win seats in the legislature, and in which the two major parties exert proportionately greater influence than their percentage of votes would suggest.
Explanations for why a country with free elections may evolve into a two-party system have been debated. A leading theory, referred to as Duverger's law, states that two parties are a natural result of a winner-take-all voting system.
Contents
1 Examples
1.1 Commonwealth countries
1.2 India
1.3 Latin America
1.4 Malta
1.5 United States
1.6 Other examples
2 Comparisons with other party systems
3 Causes
4 Third parties
5 Advantages
6 Disadvantages
7 History
7.1 Beginnings of parties in Britain
7.2 Emergence of the two-party system in Britain
7.3 History of American political parties
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
Examples[edit]
Commonwealth countries[edit]
In countries such as Britain, two major parties emerge which have strong influence and tend to elect most of the candidates, but a multitude of lesser parties exist with varying degrees of influence, and sometimes these lesser parties are able to elect officials who participate in the legislature. In political systems based on the Westminster system, which is a particular style of parliamentary democracy based on the British model and found in many commonwealth countries, a majority party will form the government and the minority party will form the opposition, and coalitions of lesser parties are possible; in the rare circumstance in which neither party is the majority, a hung parliament arises. Sometimes these systems are described as two-party systems but they are usually referred to as multi-party systems. There is not always a sharp boundary between a two-party system and a multi-party system.
Generally, a two-party system becomes a dichotomous division of the political spectrum with an ostensibly right-wing and left-wing party: the Nationalist Party vs. the Labour Party in Malta, Liberal/National Coalition vs. Labor in Australia, Republicans vs. Democrats in the United States and the Conservative Party vs. the Labour Party in the United Kingdom.
Other parties in these countries may have seen candidates elected to local or subnational office, however. Historian John Hicks claims that the United States has never possessed for any considerable period of time the two party system in its pure and undefiled form.[14]
In some governments, certain chambers may resemble a two-party system and others a multi-party system. For example, the politics of Australia are largely two-party (the Liberal/National Coalition is often considered a single party at a national level due to their long-standing alliance in forming government and additionally rarely compete for the same seat) for the Australian House of Representatives, which is elected by instant-runoff voting, known within Australia as preferential voting. However, third parties are more common in the Australian Senate, which uses a proportional voting system more amenable to minor parties.
In the politics of Canada, while having a multiparty system federally and in the largest provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba as well as the smaller Newfoundland And Labrador, Nova Scotia and Yukon Territory many of the provinces have effectively become two-party systems in which only two parties regularly get members elected. Examples include British Columbia (where the battles are between the New Democratic Party and the BC Liberals), Alberta (between the Alberta New Democratic Party and United Conservative Party), Saskatchewan (between the Saskatchewan Party and New Democratic Party), New Brunswick (between the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives) and Prince Edward Island (between Liberals and Progressive Conservatives).
The English speaking countries of the Caribbean while inheriting their basic political system from Great Britain have become two party systems. The politics of Jamaica are between the People's National Party and the Jamaica Labour Party. The politics of Guyana are between the People's Progressive Party and APNU which is actually a coalition of smaller parties. The politics of Trinidad and Tobago are between the People's National Movement and the People's Partnership which is also a coalition. The Politics of Belize are between the United Democratic Party and the People's United Party. The Politics of the Bahamas are between the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement. The politics of Barbados are between the Democratic Labour Party and the Barbados Labour Party.
The politics of Zimbabwe are effectively a two party system between the Robert Mugabe founded Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and the opposition coalition Movement for Democratic Change.
India[edit]
India has a multi-party system but also shows characteristics of a two party system with the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)[15] and National Democratic Alliance (NDA)[16] as the two main players. It is to be noted that both UPA and NDA are not two political parties but alliances of several smaller parties. Other smaller parties not aligned with either NDA or UPA exist,[17] and overall command about 20% of the 2009 seats in the Lok Sabha and had further increased to 28% in 2014 general elections
Latin America[edit]
Most Latin American countries also have presidential systems very similar to the US often with winner takes all systems. Due to the common accumulation of power in the Presidential office both the official party and the main opposition became important political protagonists causing historically two-party systems.[18] Some of the first manifestations of this particularity was with the liberals and conservatives that often fought for power in all Latin America causing the first two-party systems in most Latin American countries which often lead to civil wars in places like Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Venezuela, the Central American Republic and Peru, with fights focusing specially on opposing/defending the privileges of the Catholic Church and the creole aristocracy. Other examples of primitive two-party systems included the Pelucones vs Pipiolos in Chile, Federalists vs Unitarians in Argentina, Colorados vs Liberals in Paraguay and Colorados vs Nationals in Uruguay.[19]
However, as in other regions, the original rivalry between liberals and conservatives was overtaken by a rivalry between center-left (often social-democratic) parties vs center-right liberal conservative parties, focusing more in economic differences than in cultural and religious differences as it was common during the liberal vs conservative period. Examples of this include National Liberation Party vs Social Christian Unity Party in Costa Rica, the peronista Justicialist Party vs Radical Civic Union in Argentina, Democratic Action vs COPEI in Venezuela, the Colombian Liberal Party (despite the name, a democratic socialist party) vs the Colombian Conservative Party in Colombia, Democratic Revolutionary Party vs Panameñista Party in Panama and Liberal Party vs National Party in Honduras.[20] After the democratization of Central America following the end of the Central American crisis in the 90s former far-left guerrillas and former right-wing authoritarian parties, now in peace, make some similar two-party systems in countries like Nicaragua between the Sandinista National Liberation Front and the Liberals and in El Salvador between the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front and the Nationalist Republican Alliance.
The traditional two-party dynamic started to broke after a while, especially in early 2000s; alternative parties won elections breaking the traditional two-party systems including Rafael Caldera's (National Convergence) victory in Venezuela in 1993, Álvaro Uribe (Colombia First) victory in 2002, Tabaré Vázquez (Broad Front) victory in Uruguay in 2004, Ricardo Martinelli (Democratic Change) victory in 2009 in Panama, Luis Guillermo Solís (Citizens' Action Party ) victory in 2014 in Costa Rica and Mauricio Macri (Republican Proposal) victory in 2015 in Argentina, all of them from non-traditional third parties in their respective countries.[20] In some countries like Chile and Venezuela the political system is now split in two large multy-party alliances or blocs, one on the left and one on the right of the spectrum[19] (Concertación/New Majority vs Alliance in Chile, Democratic Unity Roundtable vs Great Patriotic Pole in Venezuela).
Malta[edit]
Malta is somewhat unusual in that while the electoral system is single transferable vote (STV), traditionally associated with proportional representation, minor parties have not earned much success. Politics is dominated between the centre-left Labour Party and the centre-right Nationalist Party, with no third parties winning seats in Parliament between 1962 and 2017.[21]
United States[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
There is general agreement that the United States has a two-party system; historically, there have been few instances in which third party candidates won an election. In the First Party System, only Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party were significant political parties. Toward the end of the First Party System, the Republicans dominated a one-party system (primarily under the Presidency of James Monroe). Under the Second Party System, the Democratic-Republican Party split during the election of 1824 into Adams' Men and Jackson's Men. In 1828, the modern Democratic Party formed in support of Andrew Jackson. The National Republicans were formed in support of John Quincy Adams. After the National Republicans collapsed, the Whig Party and the Free Soil Party quickly formed and collapsed. In 1854, the modern Republican Party formed from a loose coalition of former Whigs, Free Soilers and other anti-slavery activists. Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president in 1860.
During the Third Party System, the Republican Party was the dominant political faction, but the Democrats held a strong, loyal coalition in the Solid South. During the Fourth Party System, the Republicans remained the dominant Presidential party, although Democrats Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were both elected to two terms. In 1932, at the onset of the Fifth Party System, Democrats took firm control of national politics with the landslide victories of Franklin D. Roosevelt in four consecutive elections. Other than the two terms of Republican Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961, Democrats retained firm control of the Presidency until the mid-1960s. Since the mid-1960s, despite a number of landslides (such as Richard Nixon carrying 49 states and 61% of the popular vote over George McGovern in 1972; Ronald Reagan carrying 49 states and 58% of the popular vote over Walter Mondale in 1984), Presidential elections have been competitive between the predominant Republican and Democratic parties and no one party has been able to hold the Presidency for more than three consecutive terms, except for the elections from 1932 through 1948 when FDR won 4 elections and Truman one, both as Democrats. In the election of 2012, only 4% separated the popular vote between Barack Obama (51%) and Mitt Romney (47%), although Obama won the electoral vote by a landslide (332–206).
Throughout every American party system, no third party has won a Presidential election or majorities in either house of Congress. Despite that, third parties and third party candidates have gained traction and support. In the election of 1912, Theodore Roosevelt won 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes running as a Progressive. In the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote but no electoral votes running as an Independent.
Other examples[edit]
South Korea has a multi-party system[22] that has sometimes been described as having characteristics of a two-party system.[23]
Furthermore, the Lebanese Parliament is mainly made up of two bipartisan alliances. Although both alliances are made up of several political parties on both ends of the political spectrum the two way political situation has mainly arisen due to strong ideological differences in the electorate.[24] Once again this can mainly be attributed to the winner takes all thesis.
Historically, Brazil had a two-party system for most of its military dictatorship (1964–1985): the military junta banned all existing parties when it took power and created a pro-government party, the National Renewal Alliance and an official opposition party, the Brazilian Democratic Movement. The two parties were dissolved in 1979, when the regime allowed other parties to form.[25]
A report in The Christian Science Monitor in 2008 suggested that Spain was moving towards a "greater two-party system" while acknowledging that Spain has "many small parties".[26] However a 2015 article published by WashingtonPost.com written by academic Fernando Casal Bértoa noted the decline in support for the two main parties, the People's Party (PP) and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) in recent years, with these two parties winning only 52 percent of the votes in that year's regional and local elections. He explained this as being due to the Spanish economic crisis, a series of political corruption scandals and broken campaign promises. He argued that the emergence of the new Citizens and Podemos parties would mean the political system would evolve into a two-bloc system, with an alliance of the PP and Citizens on the right facing a leftist coalition of PSOE, Podemos and the United Left.[27]
Comparisons with other party systems[edit]
Two-party systems can be contrasted with:
Multi-party systems. In these, the effective number of parties is greater than two but usually fewer than five; in a two-party system, the effective number of parties is two (according to one analysis, the actual average number of parties varies between 1.7 and 2.1.)[28] The parties in a multi-party system can control government separately or as a coalition; in a two-party system, however, coalition governments rarely form. Examples of nations with multi-party systems include Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Taiwan.
One-party systems or dominant-party systems happen in nations where no more than one party is codified in law and/or officially recognized, or where alternate parties are restricted by the dominant party which wields power. Examples include rule by the Communist Party of China and the People's Action Party of Singapore.
Causes[edit]
There are several reasons why, in some systems, two major parties dominate the political landscape. There has been speculation that a two-party system arose in the United States from early political battling between the federalists and anti-federalists in the first few decades after the ratification of the Constitution, according to several views.[2][29] In addition, there has been more speculation that the winner-takes-all electoral system as well as particular state and federal laws regarding voting procedures helped to cause a two-party system.[2]
In a two-party system, voters have mostly two options; in this sample ballot for an election in Summit, New Jersey, voters can choose between a Republican or Democrat, but there are no third party candidates.
Economist Jeffrey D. Sachs.
Political scientists such as Maurice Duverger[30] and William H. Riker claim that there are strong correlations between voting rules and type of party system. Jeffrey D. Sachs agreed that there was a link between voting arrangements and the effective number of parties. Sachs explained how the first-past-the-post voting arrangement tended to promote a two-party system:
The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.
—  Sachs, The Price of Civilization, 2011[31]
Consider a system in which voters can vote for any candidate from any one of many parties. Suppose further that if a party gets 15% of votes, then that party will win 15% of the seats in the legislature. This is termed proportional representation or more accurately as party-proportional representation. Political scientists speculate that proportional representation leads logically to multi-party systems, since it allows new parties to build a niche in the legislature:
Because even a minor party may still obtain at least a few seats in the legislature, smaller parties have a greater incentive to organize under such electoral systems than they do in the United States.
—  Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes (2008)[2]
In contrast, a voting system that allows only a single winner for each possible legislative seat is sometimes termed a plurality voting system or single-winner voting system and is usually described under the heading of a winner-takes-all arrangement. Each voter can cast a single vote for any candidate within any given legislative district, but the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, although variants, such as requiring a majority, are sometimes used. What happens is that in a general election, a party that consistently comes in third in every district is unlikely to win any legislative seats even if there is a significant proportion of the electorate favoring its positions. This arrangement strongly favors large and well–organized political parties that are able to appeal to voters in many districts and hence win many seats, and discourages smaller or regional parties. Politically oriented people consider their only realistic way to capture political power is to run under the auspices of the two dominant parties.[2]
In the U.S., forty-eight states have a standard winner-takes-all electoral system for amassing presidential votes in the Electoral College system.[32] The winner-takes-all principle applies in presidential elections, since if a presidential candidate gets the most votes in any particular state, all of the electoral votes from that state are awarded. In all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, the presidential candidate winning a plurality of votes wins all of the electoral votes, a practice called the unit rule.[2]
Duverger concluded that "plurality election single-ballot procedures are likely to produce two-party systems, whereas proportional representation and runoff designs encourage multipartyism."[30] He suggested there were two reasons why winner-takes-all systems leads to a two-party system. First, the weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance, sometimes called a fusion, to try to become big enough to challenge a large dominant party and, in so doing, gain political clout in the legislature. Second, voters learn, over time, not to vote for candidates outside of one of the two large parties since their votes for third party candidates are usually ineffectual.[2] As a result, weaker parties are eliminated by voters over time. Duverger pointed to statistics and tactics to suggest that voters tended to gravitate towards one of the two main parties, a phenomenon which he called polarization, and tend to shun third parties.[6] For example, some analysts suggest that the Electoral College system in the United States, by favoring a system of winner-takes-all in presidential elections, is a structural choice favoring only two major parties.[33]
Gary Cox suggested that America's two-party system was highly related with economic prosperity in the country:
The bounty of the American economy, the fluidity of American society, the remarkable unity of the American people, and, most important, the success of the American experiment have all mitigated against the emergence of large dissenting groups that would seek satisfaction of their special needs through the formation of political parties.
—  Cox, according to George Edwards[30]
An effort in 2012 by centrist groups to promote ballot access by Third Party candidates called Americans Elect spent $15 million to get ballot access but failed to elect any candidates.[34] The lack of choice in a two-party model in politics has often been compared to the variety of choices in the marketplace.
Politics has lagged our social and business evolution ... There are 30 brands of Pringles in our local grocery store. How is it that Americans have so much selection for potato chips and only two brands—and not very good ones—for political parties?
—  Scott Ehredt of the Centrist Alliance[12]
Third parties[edit]
Main articles: Third party (politics), Third party (United States), and Third party (Canada)
According to one view, the winner-takes-all system discourages voters from choosing third party or independent candidates, and over time the process becomes entrenched so that only two major parties become viable.
Third parties, meaning a party other than one of the two dominant parties, are possible in two-party systems, but they are often unlikely to exert much influence by gaining control of legislatures or by winning elections.[2] While there are occasional opinions in the media expressed about the possibility of third parties emerging in the United States, for example, political insiders such as the 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson think the chances of one appearing in the early twenty-first century is remote.[35] A report in The Guardian suggested that American politics has been "stuck in a two-way fight between Republicans and Democrats" since the Civil War, and that third-party runs had little meaningful success.[36]
Third parties in a two-party system can be:
Built around a particular ideology or interest group
Split off from one of the major parties or
Focused on a charismatic individual.[35]
When third parties are built around an ideology which is at odds with the majority mindset, many members belong to such a party not for the purpose of expecting electoral success but rather for personal or psychological reasons.[2] In the U.S., third parties include older ones such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party and newer ones such as the Pirate Party.[2][37] Many believe that third parties don't affect American politics by winning elections, but they can act as "spoilers" by taking votes from one of the two major parties.[2] They act like barometers of change in the political mood since they push the major parties to consider their demands.[2] An analysis in New York Magazine by Ryan Lizza in 2006 suggested that third parties arose from time to time in the nineteenth century around single-issue movements such as abolition, women's suffrage, and the direct election of senators, but were less prominent in the twentieth century.[38]
A so-called third party in the United Kingdom are the Liberal Democrats. In the 2010 election, the Liberal Democrats received 23% of the votes but only 9% of the seats in the House of Commons. While electoral results do not necessarily translate into legislative seats, the Liberal Democrats can exert influence if there is a situation such as a hung parliament. In this instance, neither of the two main parties (at present, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party) have sufficient authority to run the government. Accordingly, the Liberal Democrats can in theory exert tremendous influence in such a situation since they can ally with one of the two main parties to form a coalition. This happened in the Coalition government of 2010. Yet in that more than 13% of the seats in the British House of Commons are held in 2011 by representatives of political parties other than the two leading political parties of that nation, contemporary Britain is considered by some to be a multi-party system, and not a two-party system.[39] The two party system in the United Kingdom allows for other parties to exist, although the main two parties tend to dominate politics; in this arrangement, other parties are not excluded and can win seats in Parliament. In contrast, the two party system in the United States has been described as a duopoly or an enforced two-party system, such that politics is almost entirely dominated by either the Republicans or Democrats, and third parties rarely win seats in Congress.[40]
Advantages[edit]
Some historians have suggested that two-party systems promote centrism and encourage political parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to political stability[4][not in citation given] which leads, in turn, to economic growth. Historian Patrick Allitt of the Teaching Company suggested that it is difficult to overestimate the long term economic benefits of political stability. Sometimes two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simpler to govern, with less fractiousness and greater harmony, since it discourages radical minor parties,[4] while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to hung parliaments.[41] Italy, with a multi-party system, has had years of divisive politics since 2000, although analyst Silvia Aloisi suggested in 2008 that the nation may be moving closer to a two-party arrangement.[42] The two-party has been identified as simpler since there are fewer voting choices.[4] One analyst suggested the two-party system, in contrast with proportional representation, prevented excessive government interference with economic policy.[8]
Disadvantages[edit]
Two-party systems have been criticized for downplaying alternative views,[4][5] being less competitive,[8] encouraging voter apathy since there is a perception of fewer choices,[4] and putting a damper on debate[5] within a nation. In a proportional representation system, lesser parties can moderate policy since they are not usually eliminated from government.[4] One analyst suggested the two-party approach may not promote inter-party compromise but may encourage partisanship.[5] In The Tyranny of the Two-party system, Lisa Jane Disch criticizes two-party systems for failing to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot. She wrote:
Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider's analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers? ... This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United States citizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy.
—  Lisa Jane Disch, 2002[43]
There have been arguments that the winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views.[8][44] Ross Perot's former campaign manager wrote that the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren't being voiced by the major parties."[35] One analyst suggested that parliamentary systems, which typically are multi-party in nature, lead to a better "centralization of policy expertise" in government.[45] Multi-party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions.[46] Analyst Chris Weigant of the Huffington Post wrote that "the parliamentary system is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American system".[46] After an election in which the party changes, there can be a "polar shift in policy-making" when voters react to changes.[4]
Political analyst A. G. Roderick, writing in his book Two Tyrants, argued that the two American parties, the Republicans and Democrats, are highly unpopular in 2015, and are not part of the political framework of state governments, and do not represent 47% of the electorate who identify themselves as "independents".[47] He makes a case that the American president should be elected on a non-partisan basis,[48][47][49] and asserts that both political parties are "cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence."[50]
History[edit]
Beginnings of parties in Britain[edit]
Equestrian portrait of William III by Jan Wyck, commemorating the landing at Brixham, Torbay, 5 November 1688
The two-party system, in the sense of the looser definition, where two parties dominate politics but in which third parties can elect members and gain some representation in the legislature, can be traced to the development of political parties in the United Kingdom. There was a division in English politics at the time of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution in the late 17th century.[51] The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Parliament.[52] In the following century, the Whig party's support base widened to include emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants.
The basic matters of principle that defined the struggle between the two factions, were concerning the nature of constitutional monarchy, the desirability of a Catholic king,[53][page needed] the extension of religious toleration to nonconformist Protestants, and other issues that had been put on the liberal agenda through the political concepts propounded by John Locke,[54] Algernon Sidney and others.[55]
Vigorous struggle between the two factions characterised the period from the Glorious Revolution to the 1715 Hanoverian succession, over the legacy of the overthrow of the Stuart dynasty and the nature of the new constitutional state. This proto two-party system fell into relative abeyance after the accession to the throne of George I and the consequent period of Whig supremacy under Robert Walpole, during which the Tories were systematically purged from high positions in government. However, although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, they still retained a measure of party cohesion under William Wyndham and acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party.
Emergence of the two-party system in Britain[edit]
The old Whig leadership dissolved in the 1760s into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs[56] under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the two party system was centred on a set of core principles held by both sides and that allowed the party out of power to remain as the Loyal Opposition to the governing party.[57]
In A Block for the Wigs (1783), James Gillray caricatured Fox's return to power in a coalition with North. George III is the blockhead in the center.
A genuine two-party system began to emerge,[58] with the accession to power of William Pitt the Younger in 1783 leading the new Tories, against a reconstituted "Whig" party led by the radical politician Charles James Fox.[59][60][61]
The two party system matured in the early 19th century era of political reform, when the franchise was widened and politics entered into the basic divide between conservatism and liberalism that has fundamentally endured up to the present. The modern Conservative Party was created out of the "Pittite" Tories by Robert Peel, who issued the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of Conservatism; - the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along with free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel, and independent Radicals, formed the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership of William Ewart Gladstone. The two party system had come of age at the time of Gladstone and his Conservative rival Benjamin Disraeli after the 1867 Reform Act.[62]
History of American political parties[edit]
Although the Founding Fathers of the United States did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan,[63] early political controversies in the 1790s saw the emergence of a two-party political system, the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party, centred on the differing views on federal government powers of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.[64][65] However, a consensus reached on these issues ended party politics in 1816 for a decade, a period commonly known as the Era of Good Feelings.[66]
Partisan politics revived in 1829 with the split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay. The former evolved into the modern Democratic Party and the latter was replaced with the Republican Party as one of the two main parties in the 1850s.
See also[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Two-party system
Duverger's law
False dichotomy
Multi-party system
One-party system
Political organisation
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Note: in the politics of Australia, technically there are not two political parties but rather "two major political groupings"; for further information, see Coalition (Australia)
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Schmidt, Steffen W., Shelley, Mack C., Bardes, Barbara A (2008). "American Government and Politics Today 2008–2009". Wadsworth Publishing Company. Retrieved 2010-11-22. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Wong Chin Huat, fz.com, Jul 29, 2013, When winner takes all Archived 2013-08-01 at the Wayback Machine., Accessed Aug 12, 2013, “...This "winner-takes-all" characteristic of political contestation then forces political groups to consolidate into two blocs, hence, the two-party system...”
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Regis Publishing, The US System: Winner Takes All, Accessed Aug. 12, 2013, “...Winner-take-all rules trigger a cycle that leads to and strengthens a system of few (two in the US) political parties...”
^ Jump up to: a b c d The Two Party System, Boundless Publishing, Two-party systems are prominent in various countries, such as the U.S., and contain both advantages and disadvantages, Accessed August 12, 2013 “...There are two main reasons winner–takes–all systems lead to a two-party system...”,
^ Jump up to: a b Eric Black, Minnpost, October 8, 2012, Why the same two parties dominate our two-party system, Accessed Aug. 12, 2013, “...SMDP (single-member districts, plurality) voting system. ... This forces those who might favor a minor party candidate to either vote for whichever of the two biggest parties the voter dislikes the least, or to risk the likelihood that their vote will be “wasted” or, worse, that they will end up helping the major-party candidate whom the voter dislikes the most to win. Minor parties aren’t banned, but they seldom produce a plurality winner, and their lack of success often causes the minor parties to wither and die....”
Jump up ^ History Learning Site, Why America is a two-party state, Accessed Aug. 12, 2013, “...The American electoral system – winner-takes-all – guarantees that any third, fourth party etc has no chance of winning....”
^ Jump up to: a b c d Patrick Bashan, CATO Institute, June 9, 2004, Do Electoral Systems Affect Government Size?, Accessed Aug. 12, 2013, “...The current system has many disadvantages, most notably its propensity to discriminate against minor parties operating outside the increasingly uncompetitive, cozy two-party system.... America’s winner-takes-all electoral system may be the least bad option for those seeking to limit government involvement in the nation’s economic life....”
Jump up ^ George F. Will, October 12, 2006, Washington Post, From Schwarzenegger, a Veto for Voters' Good, Accessed Aug. 12, 2013, “...That electoral vote system (combined with the winner-take-all allocation of votes in all states but Maine and Nebraska) makes it very difficult for third-party presidential candidates to be competitive...”
Jump up ^ Ashley Ford, Sept. 17, 2012, Cavalier Daily, Party of three: A third political party is an important aspect of the Virginia democratic process, Accessed Aug. 12, 2013, “...The two party system forces the third party to join their group in a winner take all system...”
Jump up ^ Two Party System, PBS, Two-Party System, Accessed Aug. 12, 2013, “...Third-party or independent candidates face a slew of obstacles in American politics, from limited media coverage to legal barriers and Congressional leadership rules. Laws regarding third-party candidates also vary from state to state, presenting additional difficulties....”
^ Jump up to: a b Chris Cillizza, July 24, 2011, The Washington Post, Voters’ renewed anger at Washington spurs formation of third-party advocate groups, Accessed Aug. 11, 2013
Jump up ^ Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake, May 18, 2012, The Washington Post, Americans Elect and the death of the third party movement, Accessed Aug 11, 2013
Jump up ^ The Tyranny of the Two-Party System - Lisa Jane Disch - Google Books. Books.google.com. 2002. ISBN 9780231110358. Retrieved 2012-10-29.
Jump up ^ "United Progressive Alliance (UPA)". electionaffairs.com. Archived from the original on 2012-02-05.
Jump up ^ "National Democratic Alliance (NDA)". electionaffairs.com.
Jump up ^ "Political Parties in India". electionaffairs.com. Archived from the original on 7 July 2015. Retrieved 7 August 2012.
Jump up ^ Coppedge, Michael. "The Dynamic Diversity of Latin American Party Systems". Kellogg Institute, Hesburgh Center. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^ Jump up to: a b Moreira, Constanza (2006). "Party systems, political alternation and ideology in the south cone (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay)". Retrieved 24 January 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Angell, Alan (July 1966). "PARTY SYSTEMS IN LATIN AMERICA". Political Quartely. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.1966.tb00224.x. Retrieved 24 January 2018.
Jump up ^ Borg, Bertrand (6 June 2017). "Marlene Farrugia's election met with counting hall taunts". Times of Malta. Retrieved 9 June 2017. Malta's next legislature will feature an elected third party representative for the first time in more than 50 years, with Democratic Party leader Marlene Farrugia having made it into parliament.
Jump up ^ The New York Times, August 21, 2006, Post-Koizumi, dream of a two-party system, Accessed Oct. 18, 2013, quote: “...This is positive. A two-party system isn't here yet, but it's a kind of dream we have...”
Jump up ^ Jung Sang-Geun (July 10, 2013). "'그들만의 양당제', 유권자가 정치에 관심을 끊은 이유". Mediatoday. Retrieved 2013-10-18.
Jump up ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6173322.stm
Jump up ^ Martins, Luciano; Schneider, Ronald Milton. "Brazil - Political parties". britannica.com. Retrieved 23 September 2017.
Jump up ^ Robert Marquand (March 11, 2008). "In Spain's elections, Socialists win with liberal appeal". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2010-11-07. The outcome also suggests that Spain, which has many small parties, is moving toward a greater two-party system – even as basic splits between right and left are deepening and becoming more contentious.
Jump up ^ Casal Bértoa, Fernando (19 June 2015). "Shake-up in Spain: Reform parties have broken the old two-party cartel". WashingtonPost.com. Retrieved 23 September 2017.
Jump up ^ Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies ... - Arend Lijphart - Google Books. Books.google.com. 1994. ISBN 9780198273479. Retrieved 2012-10-29.
Jump up ^ MICHIKO KAKUTANI (book reviewer) American Creation (book by Joseph J. Ellis) (November 27, 2007). "The Timing, Luck and Lust Behind the Forming of That More Perfect Union". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-11-07. the standoff between the Federalists and their opponents, which led to the modern two-party system
^ Jump up to: a b c Edwards III, George C. (2011). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (Second ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 176–7. ISBN 978-0-300-16649-1.
Jump up ^ Sachs, Jeffrey (2011). The Price of Civilization. New York: Random House. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-4000-6841-8.
Jump up ^ Kristina dell (Nov 1, 2004). "The Electoral College Explained". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2010-11-07. Forty-eight states have the standard "winner-takes-all" electoral system: whichever presidential ticket amasses the most popular votes in a state wins all the electors of that state.
Jump up ^ Kristina dell (Nov 1, 2004). "The Electoral College Explained". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2010-11-07.
Jump up ^ Michael Crowley, May 21, 2012, Time Magazine, Indie Block: Why has a third-party presidential effort sputtered?, Accessed Aug. 11, 2013, "...and another $15 million has gone toward its most valuable asset: ballot access. Americans Elect has secured a ballot line in 26 states.."
^ Jump up to: a b c Ryan Lizza (Apr 16, 2006). "But Is a Third Party Possible?". New York Magazine. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
Jump up ^ Paul Harris (19 November 2011). "'America is better than this': paralysis at the top leaves voters desperate for change". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-01-17.
Jump up ^ Jack Schofield (8 June 2009). "Sweden's Pirate Party wins EU seat (updated)". The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-03-28. The Pirate Party ... wants to legalise internet file-sharing and protect people's privacy on the net ... There *IS* a UK Pirate Party ... and there's a US ... one, and one in a few dozen others."
Jump up ^ Ryan Lizza (Apr 16, 2006). "But Is a Third Party Possible?". New York Magazine. Retrieved 2010-12-07. In the nineteenth century, third parties were single-issue creatures that grew up around great causes that the major parties were ignoring. Abolition, women’s suffrage, and the direct election of senators all started as third-party movements.
Jump up ^ United Kingdom general election, 2010#Results, The detailed "Results" section of the Wikipedia article "United Kingdom General Election, 2010".
Jump up ^ Gillespie, J. D. (2012). Challengers to Duopoly: Why Third Parties Matter in American Two-party Politics. University of South Carolina Press.
Jump up ^ "What mean will we regress to?". The Economist. Oct 5, 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-07. Certainly, there have been a whole lot of hung parliaments and slow-forming coalitions around the world lately. (Canada, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Iraq...)
Jump up ^ Silvia Aloisi (Apr 15, 2008). "Election pushes Italy towards two-party system". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-11-07. Italy's next parliament will have far fewer parties than the previous assembly, pushing the country closer to the two-party system that many commentators say is the only way to end years of political instability. ...
Jump up ^ Lisa Jane Disch (2002). "The tyranny of the two-party system". Columbia University Press. Retrieved 2010-10-22.
Jump up ^ Kristina dell (Nov 1, 2004). "The Electoral College Explained". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2010-11-07. Some argue that the winner-take-all mechanism in 48 states discourages independent or third party candidates from running because it would be difficult for them to get many electoral votes.
Jump up ^ "The advantages of parliamentarianism". The Economist. Jan 21, 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-07.
^ Jump up to: a b Chris Weigant (April 7, 2010). "Exceptional Democracy". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2010-11-07. And, as a result, more parties are represented in their parliament after the elections. The Italian Parliament, for instance, recently had more than 70 parties represented. ... These deals are cut with the smaller parties by offering them the chance to fill high government offices...
^ Jump up to: a b Wisconsin Public Radio, Two Tyrants interview by Kathleen Dunn with author A.G. Roderick
Jump up ^ A.G.Roderick (Oct 17, 2014). Two Tyrants. City of Gold Publishing. ISBN 978-0990889205. Retrieved 2016-04-23.
Jump up ^ "Republicans and Democrats: America's Two Tyrants?". WNYC Public Radio. July 27, 2015. Retrieved April 23, 2016. ...only about eight percent of Americans feel confident in our partisan Congress ... 47 percent of Americans ... identify as independents. ...
Jump up ^ LOREN MORENO (June 15, 2015). "Two Tyrants". Honolulu Magazine. Retrieved April 23, 2016. ... since both parties are cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence, the American populace is left in a “crisis of creativity,” ...
Jump up ^ J. R. Jones, The First Whigs. The Politics of the Exclusion Crisis. 1678–1683 (Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 4.
Jump up ^ Harris, Tim Restoration:Charles II and His Kingdoms 1660–1685 Allen Lane (2005) p241
Jump up ^ Hamowy, Ronald, ed. (2008). "The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
Jump up ^ Richard Ashcraft and M. M. Goldsmith, "Locke, Revolution Principles, and the Formation of Whig Ideology," Historical Journal, Dec 1983, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p 773-800
Jump up ^ Melinda S. Zook, "The Restoration Remembered: The First Whigs and the Making of their History," Seventeenth Century, Autumn 2002, Vol. 17 Issue 2, pp 213–34
Jump up ^ Robert Lloyd Kelley (1990). The Transatlantic Persuasion: The Liberal-Democratic Mind in the Age of Gladstone. Transaction Publishers. p. 83. ISBN 9781412840293.
Jump up ^ "ConHome op-ed: the USA, Radical Conservatism and Edmund Burke".
Jump up ^ Frank O'Gorman (1982). The Emergence of the British Two-Party System, 1760 - 1832. Holmes & Meier Publishers, Incorporated.
Jump up ^ "The History of Political Parties in England (1678-1914)".
Jump up ^ Parliamentary History, xxiv, 213, 222, cited in Foord, His Majesty's Opposition, 1714–1830, P 441
Jump up ^ Ellen Wilson and Peter Reill, Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment (2004) p 298
Jump up ^ Stephen J. Lee (2005). Gladstone and Disraeli. Routledge. p. 146. ISBN 9781134349272.
Jump up ^ Washington's Farewell Address
Jump up ^ Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 (1970)
Jump up ^ William Nisbet Chambers, ed. The First Party System (1972)
Jump up ^ Stephen Minicucci, Internal Improvements and the Union, 1790–1860, Studies in American Political Development (2004), 18: p.160-185, (2004), Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/S0898588X04000094
External links[edit]
Look up two-party system in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Video explaining why America is a two-party system
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-party_system&oldid=865895593"
Categories:
Forms of government
Elections
Political party systems
Hidden categories:
CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list
Webarchive template wayback links
Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
Articles needing additional references from November 2017
All articles needing additional references
All articles with failed verification
Articles with failed verification from March 2017
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from November 2013
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
हिन्दी
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Қазақша
Lietuvių
Lumbaart
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
සිංහල
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
中文
25 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 26 October 2018, at 21:50 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;border-collapse:collapse; border-spacing:0px; border:none; width:100%; margin:0px; font-size:100%; clear:none; float:none

values: padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;padding-top:0.2em;text-align:left;padding:0.15em 0.3em 0.6em;text-align:center;

values: List of ruling political parties by country

values: padding:0.2em 0 0.4em;padding:0.4em 0 0.4em;

values:
/wiki/Politics_by_country
mw-redirect
Politics by country

values: font-size: 105%; padding: 0.2em 0px 0.4em; text-align: center; display: none;

values: padding:0.2em 0.4em; line-height:1.2em; line-height:1.15em;

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: 1px solid #aaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa;padding-top: 0.1em; font-weight: bold;

values:
/wiki/Political_parties
mw-redirect
Political parties

values:
/wiki/Plurality_voting_system
mw-redirect
Plurality voting system

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values:
/wiki/Right_wing_politics
mw-redirect
Right wing politics

values:
/wiki/Left_wing_politics
mw-redirect
Left wing politics

values:
/wiki/Malta_Labour_Party
mw-redirect
Malta Labour Party

values:
/wiki/Newfoundland_And_Labrador
mw-redirect
Newfoundland And Labrador

values:
/wiki/Yukon_Territory
mw-redirect
Yukon Territory

values: Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick

values: Progressive Conservative Party of Prince Edward Island

values: Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front

values: Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai

values:
/wiki/Presidential_systems
mw-redirect
Presidential systems

values: Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America

values:
/wiki/Central_American_Republic
mw-redirect
Central American Republic

values:
/wiki/Liberal_conservative
mw-redirect
Liberal conservative

values:
/wiki/Democratic_socialist
mw-redirect
Democratic socialist

values: Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front

values: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Unreferenced

values: United States presidential election, 1828

values:
/wiki/National_Republicans
mw-redirect
National Republicans

values: United States presidential election, 1932

values:
/wiki/Dwight_Eisenhower
mw-redirect
Dwight Eisenhower

values: United States presidential election, 1972

values: United States presidential election, 1984

values: United States presidential election, 2012

values: United States presidential election, 1912

values: United States presidential election, 1992

values:
/wiki/Brazilian_military_government
mw-redirect
Brazilian military government

values: Edit section: Comparisons with other party systems

values:
/wiki/Republic_of_China
mw-redirect
Republic of China

values:
/wiki/Jeffrey_D._Sachs
mw-redirect
Jeffrey D. Sachs

values:
/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law
mw-redirect
Duverger's Law

values:
/wiki/Single-winner_voting_system
mw-redirect
Single-winner voting system

values:
/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
mw-redirect
Electoral College (United States)

values:
/wiki/Electoral_votes
mw-redirect
Electoral votes

values:
/wiki/Green_Party_(United_States)
mw-redirect
Green Party (United States)

values:
/wiki/New_York_Magazine
mw-redirect
New York Magazine

values: The material near this tag failed verification of its source citation(s). (March 2017)

values:
/wiki/Teaching_Company
mw-redirect
Teaching Company

values:
/wiki/Politics_in_Italy
mw-redirect
Politics in Italy

values:
/wiki/Citizenship_in_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Citizenship in the United States

values:
/wiki/The_Huffington_Post
mw-redirect
The Huffington Post

values: Edit section: Beginnings of parties in Britain

values:
/wiki/Absolute_Monarchy
mw-redirect
Absolute Monarchy

values:
/wiki/Tory_(British_political_party)
mw-redirect
Tory (British political party)

values: This citation requires a reference to the specific page or range of pages in which the material appears. (November 2013)

values:
/wiki/Religious_toleration
mw-redirect
Religious toleration

values:
/wiki/Hanoverian_succession
mw-redirect
Hanoverian succession

values:
/wiki/Stuart_dynasty
mw-redirect
Stuart dynasty

values:
/wiki/Whig_supremacy
mw-redirect
Whig supremacy

values: Edit section: Emergence of the two-party system in Britain

values: Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham

values:
/wiki/Loyal_Opposition
mw-redirect
Loyal Opposition

values:
/wiki/Radicalism_(politics)
mw-redirect
Radicalism (politics)

values:
/wiki/1832_Reform_Act
mw-redirect
1832 Reform Act

values:
/wiki/British_Tory_Party#Pittites
mw-redirect
British Tory Party

values: Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston

values:
/wiki/1867_Reform_Act
mw-redirect
1867 Reform Act

values: Edit section: History of American political parties

values:
/wiki/Federalist_Party_(United_States)
mw-redirect
Federalist Party (United States)

values: Democratic-Republican Party (United States)

values:
/wiki/Jacksonian_Democracy
mw-redirect
Jacksonian Democracy

values: History of United States Republican Party

values:
/wiki/False_dichotomy
mw-redirect
False dichotomy

values: Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list

values:
nofollow
http://nymag.com/news/politics/16743/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.wpr.org/listen/767011

values:
/wiki/SAGE_Publications
mw-redirect
SAGE Publications

values:
nofollow
external text
//lccn.loc.gov/2008009151

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/750831024

values: Wikisource has information on "Washington's Farewell Address#20"

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

values: Category:Articles needing additional references from November 2017

values: Category:All articles needing additional references

values: Category:All articles with failed verification

values: Category:Articles with failed verification from March 2017

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from November 2013

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Two-party_system
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: حكم الحزبين – Arabic

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-az
display: none;

values: Двупартийна система – Bulgarian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-bg
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ca
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-de
display: none;

values: Δικομματισμός – Greek

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-el
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-eo
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-eu
display: none;

values: نظام دوحزبی – Persian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fa
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-gl
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ko
display: none;

values: द्विदलीय प्रणाली – Hindi

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-it
display: none;

values: מערכת דו-מפלגתית – Hebrew

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-he
display: none;

values: Екі партиялық жүйе – Kazakh

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-kk
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-lt
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-lmo
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-nl
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ja
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pl
display: none;

values: Двухпартийная система – Russian

values: දේශපාලන පක්ෂ ක්‍රම - ද්වී පක්ෂ ක්‍රමය Polical party systems – Two dominant parties – Sinhala

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-si
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sh
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fi
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sv
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-tr
display: none;

values: Двопартійна система – Ukrainian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-uk
display: none;

values: دو جماعتی نظام – Urdu

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-vi
display: none;

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Two-party_system rootpage-Two-party_system skin-vector action-view


text:
Electrical conduction system of the heart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Electrical conduction system of the heart
Heart; conduction system. 1. SA node. 2. AV node. 3. Bundle of His. 8. Septum
Details
Identifiers
Latin
systema conducens cordis
MeSH
D006329
TA
A12.1.06.002
FMA
9476
Anatomical terminology
[edit on Wikidata]
The electrical conduction system of the heart transmits signals generated usually by the sinoatrial node to cause contraction of the heart muscle. The pacemaking signal generated in the sinoatrial node travels through the right atrium to the atrioventricular node, along the Bundle of His and through bundle branches to cause contraction of the heart muscle. This signal stimulates contraction first of the right and left atrium, and then the right and left ventricles. This process allows blood to be pumped throughout the body.
The conduction system consists of specialised heart muscle cells, and is situated within the myocardium. There is a skeleton of fibrous tissue that surrounds the conduction system which can be seen on an ECG. Dysfunction of the conduction system can cause irregular, fast, or slow heart rhythms.
Contents
[hide]
1 Structure
1.1 Development
2 Function
2.1 Action potential generation
2.2 Requirements for effective pumping
3 ECG
3.1 SA node: P wave
3.2 AV node and bundles: PR interval
3.3 Purkine fibers/ventricular myocardium: QRS complex
3.4 Ventricular repolarization
4 Clinical significance
4.1 Arrhythmia
4.1.1 Speed
4.1.2 Physiological
4.2 Pacemakers
5 See also
6 References
Structure[edit]
Overview of the system of electrical conduction which maintains the rhythmical contraction of the heart
Electrical signals arising in the SA node (located in the right atrium) stimulate the atria to contract and travel to the atrioventricular node (AV node), which is located in the interatrial septum. After a delay, the stimulus diverges and is conducted through the left and right bundle of His to the respective Purkinje fibers for each side of the heart, as well as to the endocardium at the apex of the heart, then finally to the ventricular epicardium.[1]
On the microscopic level, the wave of depolarization propagates to adjacent cells via gap junctions located on the intercalated disc. The heart is a functional syncytium (not to be confused with a true "syncytium" in which all the cells are fused together, sharing the same plasma membrane as in skeletal muscle). In a functional syncytium, electrical impulses propagate freely between cells in every direction, so that the myocardium functions as a single contractile unit. This property allows rapid, synchronous depolarization of the myocardium. While advantageous under normal circumstances, this property can be detrimental, as it has potential to allow the propagation of incorrect electrical signals. These gap junctions can close to isolate damaged or dying tissue, as in a myocardial infarction (heart attack).
Development[edit]
Embryologic evidence of generation of the cardiac conduction system illuminates the respective roles of this specialized set of cells. Innervation of the heart begins with a brain only centered parasympathetic cholinergic first order. It is then followed by rapid growth of a second order sympathetic adrenergic system arising from the formation of the thoracic spinal ganglia. The third order of electrical influence of the heart is derived from the vagus nerve as the other peripheral organs form.[2]
Function[edit]
Action potential generation[edit]
Main article: Cardiac action potential
Cardiac muscle has some similarities to neurons and skeletal muscle, as well as important unique properties. Like a neuron, a given myocardial cell has a negative membrane potential when at rest. Stimulation above a threshold value induces the opening of voltage-gated ion channels and a flood of cations into the cell. The positively charged ions entering the cell cause the depolarization characteristic of an action potential. Like skeletal muscle, depolarization causes the opening of voltage-gated calcium channels and release of Ca2+ from the t-tubules. This influx of calcium causes calcium-induced calcium release from the sarcoplasmic reticulum, and free Ca2+ causes muscle contraction. After a delay, potassium channels reopen, and the resulting flow of K+ out of the cell causes repolarization to the resting state.[3][4]
There are important physiological differences between nodal cells and ventricular cells; the specific differences in ion channels and mechanisms of polarization give rise to unique properties of SA node cells, most important, the spontaneous depolarizations necessary for the SA node's pacemaker activity.
Requirements for effective pumping[edit]
In order to maximize efficiency of contractions and cardiac output, the conduction system of the heart has:
Substantial atrial to ventricular delay. This will allow the atria to completely empty their contents into the ventricles; simultaneous contraction would cause inefficient filling and backflow. The atria are electrically isolated from the ventricles, connected only via the AV node which briefly delays the signal.
Coordinated contraction of ventricular cells. The ventricles must maximize systolic pressure to force blood through the circulation, so all the ventricular cells must work together.
Ventricular contraction begins at the apex of the heart, progressing upwards to eject blood into the great arteries. Contraction that squeezes blood towards the exit is more efficient than a simple squeeze from all directions. Although the ventricular stimulus originates from the AV node in the wall separating the atria and ventricles, the Bundle of His conducts the signal to the apex.
Depolarization propagates through cardiac muscle very rapidly. Cells of the ventricles contract nearly simultaneously.
The action potentials of cardiac muscle are unusually sustained. This prevents premature relaxation, maintaining initial contraction until the entire myocardium has had time to depolarize and contract.
Absence of tetany. After contracting, the heart must relax to fill up again. Sustained contraction of the heart without relaxation would be fatal, and this is prevented by a temporary inactivation of certain ion channels.
ECG[edit]
See also: Electrocardiogram
The ECG complex. P=P wave, PR=PR interval, QRS=QRS complex, QT=QT interval, ST=ST segment, T=T wave
Principle of ECG formation. Note that the red lines represent the depolarization wave, not bloodflow.
An electrocardiogram is a recording of the electrical activity of the heart.
SA node: P wave[edit]
Under normal conditions, electrical activity is spontaneously generated by the SA node, the cardiac pacemaker. This electrical impulse is propagated throughout the right atrium, and through Bachmann's bundle to the left atrium, stimulating the myocardium of the atria to contract. The conduction of the electrical impulses throughout the atria is seen on the ECG as the P wave.[3][5]
As the electrical activity is spreading throughout the atria, it travels via specialized pathways, known as internodal tracts, from the SA node to the AV node.
AV node and bundles: PR interval[edit]
The AV node functions as a critical delay in the conduction system. Without this delay, the atria and ventricles would contract at the same time, and blood wouldn't flow effectively from the atria to the ventricles. The delay in the AV node forms much of the PR segment on the ECG, and part of atrial repolarization can be represented by the PR segment.
The distal portion of the AV node is known as the bundle of His.[6] The bundle of His splits into two branches in the interventricular septum: the left bundle branch and the right bundle branch. The left bundle branch activates the left ventricle, while the right bundle branch activates the right ventricle.
The left bundle branch is short, splitting into the left anterior fascicle and the left posterior fascicle. The left posterior fascicle is relatively short and broad, with dual blood supply, making it particularly resistant to ischemic damage. The left posterior fascicle transmits impulses to the papillary muscles, leading to mitral valve closure. As the left posterior fascicle is shorter and broader than the right, impulses reach the papillary muscles just prior to depolarization, and therefore contraction, of the left ventricle myocardium. This allows pre-tensioning of the chordae tendinae, increasing the resistance to flow through the mitral valve during left ventricular contraction.[3] This mechanism works in the same manner as pre-tensioning of car seatbelts.
Purkine fibers/ventricular myocardium: QRS complex[edit]
The two bundle branches taper out to produce numerous Purkinje fibers, which stimulate individual groups of myocardial cells to contract.[3]
The spread of electrical activity through the ventricular myocardium produces the QRS complex on the ECG.
Atrial repolarization occurs and is masked during the QRS complex by ventricular depolarization on the ECG.
Ventricular repolarization[edit]
The last event of the cycle is the repolarization of the ventricles. It is the restoring of the resting state. In the ECG, repolarization includes the J point, ST segment, and T and U waves.[7]
The transthoracically measured PQRS portion of an electrocardiogram is chiefly influenced by the sympathetic nervous system. The T (and occasionally U) waves are chiefly influenced by the parasympathetic nervous system guided by integrated brainstem control from the vagus nerve and the thoracic spinal accessory ganglia.
An impulse (action potential) that originates from the SA node at a relative rate of 60-100bpm is known as normal sinus rhythm. If SA nodal impulses occur at a rate less than 60bpm, the heart rhythm is known as sinus bradycardia. If SA nodal impulses occur at a rate exceeding 100bpm, the consequent rapid heart rate is sinus tachycardia. These conditions are not necessarily bad symptoms, however. Trained athletes, for example, usually show heart rates slower than 60bpm when not exercising. If the SA node fails to initialize, the AV junction can take over as the main pacemaker of the heart. The AV junction consists of the AV node, the bundle of His, and the surrounding area; it has a regular rate of 40 to 60bpm. These "junctional" rhythms are characterized by a missing or inverted P wave. If both the SA node and the AV junction fail to initialize the electrical impulse, the ventricles can fire the electrical impulses themselves at a rate of 20 to 40bpm and will have a QRS complex of greater than 120 ms. This is necessary for the heart to be in good function.
Clinical significance[edit]
Arrhythmia[edit]
Main article: Cardiac arrhythmia
An 'arrhythmia' refers to an abnormal rhythm or speed of rhythm of the heartbeat. An abnormal rhythm or speed is defined as one which is not physiological.
Speed[edit]
Main articles: Bradycardia and Tachycardia
A resting heart that beats slower than 60 beats per minute, or faster than 100 beats per minute, is regarded as having an arrhythmia. A heartbeat slower than 60 beats per minute is known as bradycardia, and a heartbeat faster than 100 is known as a tachycardia.
Physiological[edit]
Some individuals, for example trained athletes, may have heart beats slower than 60 beats per minute when not exercising. If the SA node fails to initialize, the AV junction can take over as the main pacemaker of the heart. The AV junction "surrounds" the AV node (the AV node is not able to initialize its own impulses) and has a regular rate of 40 to 60 bpm. These "junctional" rhythms are characterized by a missing or inverted P-Wave. If both the SA node and the AV junction fail to initialize the electrical impulse, the ventricles can fire the electrical impulses themselves at a rate of 20 to 40 bpm and will have a QRS complex of greater than 120 ms.
Pacemakers[edit]
Main article: Artificial cardiac pacemaker
In the event of arrhythmia, a pacemaker may be surgically inserted into the conduction system.
See also[edit]
This article uses anatomical terminology; for an overview, see Anatomical terminology.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Your Heart's Electrical System". National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. National Institutes of Health. November 17, 2011. Retrieved January 1, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Innervation of the heart". Human Embryology: Organogenesis: Functional development of the heart.
^ Jump up to: a b c d "Cardiac Muscle and Electrical Activity". OpenStax CNX: Anatomy & Physiology. OpenStax CNX. November 7, 2014. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Cardiac Muscle Fibers". ZY 560 Mammalian Physiology. Auburn University. Archived from the original on June 1, 2005. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Cardiac Cycle". ECG Tutorial. University of Michigan Health System. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ Anderson, Robert H.; Mori, Shumpei (2016). "Wilhelm His Junior and his bundle". Journal of Electrocardiology. doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2016.06.003. ISSN 0022-0736.
Jump up ^ Kowey, P., Yan, Gan-Xin. "Ventricular repolarization components on the electrocardiogram". Retrieved 2013-03-08.
[show]
v
t
e
Physiology of the cardiovascular system
Heart
Cardiac output
Cardiac cycle
Cardiac output
Heart rate
Stroke volume
Stroke volume
End-diastolic volume
End-systolic volume
Afterload
Preload
Frank–Starling law
Cardiac function curve
Venous return curve
Wiggers diagram
Pressure volume diagram
Ultrasound
Fractional shortening = (End-diastolic dimension
End-systolic dimension) / End-diastolic dimension
Aortic valve area calculation
Ejection fraction
Cardiac index
Heart rate
Cardiac pacemaker
Chronotropic (Heart rate)
Dromotropic (Conduction velocity)
Inotropic (Contractility)
Bathmotropic (Excitability)
Lusitropic (Relaxation)
Conduction
Conduction system
Cardiac electrophysiology
Action potential
cardiac
atrial
ventricular
Effective refractory period
Pacemaker potential
Electrocardiography
P wave
PR interval
QRS complex
QT interval
ST segment
T wave
U wave
Hexaxial reference system
Chamber pressure
Central venous
Right
atrial
ventricular
pulmonary artery
wedge
Left
atrial
ventricular
Aortic
Other
Ventricular remodeling
Vascular system/
Hemodynamics
Blood flow
Compliance
Vascular resistance
Pulse
Perfusion
Blood pressure
Pulse pressure
Systolic
Diastolic
Mean arterial pressure
Jugular venous pressure
Portal venous pressure
Regulation of BP
Baroreflex
Kinin–kallikrein system
Renin–angiotensin system
Vasoconstrictors
Vasodilators
Autoregulation
Myogenic mechanism
Tubuloglomerular feedback
Cerebral autoregulation
Paraganglia
Aortic body
Carotid body
Glomus cell
[hide]
v
t
e
Anatomy of the heart
General
Surface
base
apex
sulci
coronary
interatrial
anterior interventricular
posterior interventricular
borders
right
left
Internal
atria
interatrial septum
pectinate muscles
terminal sulcus
ventricles
interventricular septum
trabeculae carneae
chordae tendineae
papillary muscle
valves
cusps
atrioventricular septum
cardiac skeleton
intervenous tubercle
Chambers
Right heart
(venae cavae, coronary sinus) → right atrium (atrial appendage, fossa ovalis, limbus of fossa ovalis, crista terminalis, valve of inferior vena cava, valve of coronary sinus) → tricuspid valve → right ventricle (infundibulum, moderator band/septomarginal trabecula, crista supraventricularis), → pulmonary valve → (pulmonary artery and pulmonary circulation)
Left heart
(pulmonary veins) → left atrium (atrial appendage) → mitral valve → left ventricle → aortic valve (aortic sinus) → (aorta and systemic circulation)
Layers
Endocardium
heart valves
Myocardium
Conduction system
cardiac pacemaker
SA node
Bachmann's bundle
AV node
bundle of His
bundle branches
Purkinje fibers
Pericardial cavity
pericardial sinus
Pericardium
fibrous pericardium
sternopericardial ligaments
serous pericardium
epicardium/visceral layer
fold of left vena cava
Blood supply
Circulatory system
Coronary circulation
Coronary arteries
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electrical_conduction_system_of_the_heart&oldid=835525931"
Categories:
Cardiac electrophysiology
Hidden categories:
Pages with unresolved properties
Articles needing additional references from October 2013
All articles needing additional references
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Galego
Italiano
עברית
Latviešu
Lietuvių
മലയാളം
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
ไทย
Українська
中文
17 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 9 April 2018, at 06:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

value: td

attrs: href title

value: b

attrs: class href

values: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

value: span

value: i

value: small

value: tr

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Refimprove

values:
/wiki/Heart_muscle
mw-redirect
Heart muscle

values:
/wiki/Right_atrium
mw-redirect
Right atrium

values:
/wiki/Right_ventricle
mw-redirect
Right ventricle

values:
/wiki/Left_ventricle
mw-redirect
Left ventricle

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Thoracic spinal ganglia (page does not exist)

values: Edit section: Action potential generation

values:
/wiki/Voltage-gated_calcium_channels
mw-redirect
Voltage-gated calcium channels

values: Edit section: Requirements for effective pumping

values:
/wiki/Systole_(medicine)
mw-redirect
Systole (medicine)

values:
/wiki/Atrium_(anatomy)
mw-redirect
Atrium (anatomy)

values: Edit section: AV node and bundles: PR interval

values: Edit section: Purkine fibers/ventricular myocardium: QRS complex

values: Edit section: Ventricular repolarization

values:
/wiki/Spinal_accessory_ganglia
mw-redirect
Spinal accessory ganglia

values:
/wiki/Cardiac_arrhythmia
mw-redirect
Cardiac arrhythmia

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-0736

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
/wiki/Pressure_volume_diagram
mw-redirect
Pressure volume diagram

values:
/wiki/End-diastolic_dimension
mw-redirect
End-diastolic dimension

values:
/wiki/End-systolic_dimension
mw-redirect
End-systolic dimension

values:
/wiki/Right_ventricular_pressure
mw-redirect
Right ventricular pressure

values:
/wiki/Pulmonary_artery_pressure
mw-redirect
Pulmonary artery pressure

values:
/wiki/Left_ventricular_pressure
mw-redirect
Left ventricular pressure

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values:
/wiki/Base_of_the_heart
mw-redirect
Base of the heart

values:
/wiki/Apex_of_the_heart
mw-redirect
Apex of the heart

values:
/wiki/Cusps_of_heart_valves
mw-redirect
Cusps of heart valves

values:
/wiki/Right_heart
mw-redirect
Right heart

values:
/wiki/Right_atrial_appendage
mw-redirect
Right atrial appendage

values:
/wiki/Limbus_of_fossa_ovalis
mw-redirect
Limbus of fossa ovalis

values:
/wiki/Left_atrium
mw-redirect
Left atrium

values:
/wiki/Left_atrial_appendage
mw-redirect
Left atrial appendage

values:
/wiki/Systemic_circulation
mw-redirect
Systemic circulation

values:
/wiki/Fibrous_pericardium
mw-redirect
Fibrous pericardium

values:
/wiki/Serous_pericardium
mw-redirect
Serous pericardium

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:Pages with unresolved properties

values: Category:Articles needing additional references from October 2013

values: Category:All articles needing additional references

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: نظام التوصيل الكهربائي للقلب – Arabic

values: Sistem električne provodljivosti srca – Bosnian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-bs
display: none;

values: Sistema de conducció elèctrica del cor – Catalan

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ca
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-cs
display: none;

values: Sistema de conducción eléctrica del corazón – Spanish

values: سیستم هدایت الکتریکی قلب – Persian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fa
display: none;

values: Sistema de condución do corazón – Galician

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-gl
display: none;

values: Sistema di conduzione del cuore – Italian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-it
display: none;

values: מערכת ההפעלה וההולכה החשמלית של הלב – Hebrew

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-he
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-lv
display: none;

values: ആവേഗ പ്രസരണ വ്യവസ്ഥ (ഹൃദയം) – Malayalam

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ml
display: none;

values: Układ bodźcotwórczo-przewodzący serca – Polish

values: Sistema de condução elétrica do coração – Portuguese

values: Проводящая система сердца – Russian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sk
display: none;

values: Спроводни систем срца – Serbian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sr
display: none;

values: இதய மின்கடத்துகை ஒருங்கியம் – Tamil

values: ระบบการนำไฟฟ้าหัวใจ – Thai

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-th
display: none;

values: Провідна система серця – Ukrainian

values: 心臟電傳導系統 – Chinese

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Electrical_conduction_system_of_the_heart rootpage-Electrical_conduction_system_of_the_heart skin-vector action-view