both are ruled by the executive branch
Generally, a Parliamentary system will get work done quicker, but a Presidential system is sometimes desirable because it partly limits the government.
Parliamentary is the British political system. Presidential is the American political system.
parliamentary,presidential
There are many differences, here I will mention what I deem to be the most important: Presidential :1) In a Presidential System the President is both Head of State and Head of Government. Presidents under this system almost always have the most power. 2) In a Presidential System there is a (more often than not) complete separation of powers. 3)The President usually relies on a popular mandate (elections) and not the confidence of the legislature to gain and/or hold onto power. 4) Legislative terms are fixed, a legislature in a Presidential system can't be dissolved Parliamentary: 1) In a Parliamentary system there is a complete separation btwn the Head of State (Monarch or President) and the Head of Government (Prime Minister or Chancellor) . 2) In a Parliamentary system the Head of Government usually holds the most power the Head of State may hold some emergency powers and also gives laws the final approval. 3) Separation of powers are blurred in Parliamentary systems (example: The Govt of the UK is formed of members of parliament) 4) The Government must hold the confidence of the legislature to continue its mandate of governing (simply put the Prime Ministers party or coalition must hold a majority in the legislature). 5) Parliamentary systems do not have a fixed term usually only a maximum number of years, if the legislature finds no confidence of the government of the day then the legislature may be dissolved and new elections held)
Voters elect members of the legislative branch
The answer is presidential and parliamentary.
In both Presidential and Parliamentry systems, the citizens get a direct vote.
it is a combination of both presidential system and parliamentary system
Only four countries in the world today do not identify themseves as democratic in one form or another. These are Saudi Arabia, Myanmar (Burma), Brunei, and Vatican City. Of the other countries there are many that claim to be democratic, but in practice are too corrupt, too volatile, or have too many restrictions on human rights to be considered "true democracies" According to the Democracy Index produced by the Economist Magazine there are 30 Full Democracies: Where national elections are free and fair, voters are free to vote in safety, there is no manipulative influence by foreign governments, and the civil cervice is capable of administering polices effectively. 50 Flawed Democracies: Countries that practice democracy, but have some significant problems with the process. 36 Hybrid Regimes: Where there is some democratic elements but they are often hampered by corruption or threat as to be less effective than they might otherwise. 51 Authoritarian Regimes: Where the state claims to be democratic but in practice there is little or no democracy in the process or running the nation. The "Full Democracies" according to the Democracy index are: Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Spain, Malta, Japan, United States, Czech Republic, Belgium, United Kingdom, Greece, Uruguay, France, Portugal, Mauritius, Costa Rica, South Korea, Italy, and Slovenia
Parliamentary
Both are federal presidential representative republics.
Presidential
Presidential and Parliamentary. Presidential which is direct democracy and Parliamentary (like UK) which is indirect democracy.
There are two systems; Parliamentary and Presidential, in first the prime Minister is the head while in other the president.
Switzerland has a parliamentary government.
Generally, a Parliamentary system will get work done quicker, but a Presidential system is sometimes desirable because it partly limits the government.
Parliamentary