Parliamentary vs. Presidential Democracy Explained 

This is NOT Parliamentary vs. Presidential Democracy Explained It is UK Parliament vs US Presidential

Lords are not really appointed by the Queen. They are recommended by the current PM, the Queen really just signs in agreement.

The U.K. Is similar to Canada's because Canada was based on the uks

Lot's of information left out, but good shot for an American. The HoC for instance can force through a bill should HoL reject it. See the ban on hunting with dog aka 'the foxhunting ban'

This is a top-notch. Thanks for being very explicit. I enjoyed listening to this short but highly impactful video. 👍

thank you so much UK friends and family.

Andrew Johnson not jackson that almost got impeached

In the Netherlands we have a proportionel elected lowerchamber who have to approve a cabinet and can make laws, And a senate which can veto laws that is chosen proportionely by the provincial parliaments,the weight of their votes are based upon the population of their respective provinces. Both chambers are also without a voter threshold and have elections every 4 years We also have a king as head of state who does a bit of diplomacy and waves at people..

Here in New Zealand, we have Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state. We use the Parliamentary System as most of the commonwealth. The best thing about a Parliamentary system (monarchy or non-monarchy) is that it does not give much power to the government, one bad move and the government will crumble and can be easily replaced. This therefore forces the government keep their best behaviour, the Queen could fire and dismissed the government if she needs to which had happened in Australia when their PM was fired by the Governor General and appointed a government caretaker, until after a new election. Therefore someone like Trump can never survive a Parliamentary System as they would get sacked either by their Parties, Parliament or the Queen.

4:09 Do *not* call Queen Elizabeth II the "Queen of England". That is *not* one of her titles. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, not just of England. Furthermore, the supposed "seal of the Prime Minister" that you keep showing - where did you get that from? That's not real!

Thank you! This video was very fun and informative :)

Lol, gotta love how the Vatican is an absolute monarchy

You miss a lot of the nuances of the UK system. This is fair as the UK system has been around a long time and has grown in an organic way rather than being written down.

Great video loved the comparisons. However you have a slight confusion with the House of Lords. The house currently has 791 members. Of these 26 are bishops and 91 are hereditary peers. The remaining majority are life peers and are chosen by the Government and then appointed by the monarch. Life peers are chosen from people who have specialist knowledge in particular areas such as business, science, politics etc. Also as mentioned by other comments, although the Parliament of the United Kingdom has two houses, it is the lower house ie the Elected House of Commons which contains the government and opposition which has the most power. Under the Parliaments act 1911 the lords can only block a bill for 1 year or 3 months of the bill is a financial one. Personally I do like the House of Lords however it does need major reform notably scrapping the hereditary peers and barons. Also should be greater checks and balances on how Life peers are appointed. Seems too easy these days for the government to appoint ridiculous amounts of life peers who suit their parties agenda. Needs to be more control on how many can be appointed a year etc.

This is a very dank explanation. Thank you.

Another thing you missed out is not only does the uk have general elections by local elections. Which elect members for local government in different areas. You vote for the councillors who run the councils in cities, towns, villages. Which deal with things such as education, social services and more. Plus there is election of the police commissioner of each region.

I've always thought that the UK system is way better than the American system. I'm Canadian and I love our political system (which is greatly similar to the UK). The American political system has become one big mess that can't get things done.

It's great to learn about the differences that the two countries have, even though they are quite close even with the relationship they have.

Thanks for the video. Good luck on your election UK. It will be interesting to see who you all vote for.

Thank you for the video. You've just made much easier to understand. You should do a video on political parties in US VS UK if you haven't already

Actually, here are a few corrections. 1) There has not been a Queen of England since the 1707 Act of Union which united England and Scotland. The current title of the Queen is Her Majesty The Queen of the United Kingdom. B) Her Majesty The Queen is the Commander in Chief of the British Armed Services. However, like in most aspect of a Constitutional Monarchy, Her Majesty is advised by her Prime Minister.

Pretty sure that the Lords can only delay laws now.

Just FYI the House of Lords no longer has hereditary peers in the UK as the title is no longer pasted on in the family, meaning those lords who are their presently due to inheritance are the last of their kind.

You missed out that lords can be elected by the sitting on too. Also votes of no confidence can be instigated by the general public through petitions. The UK's law states that if a petition reached a certain number of signatures it must be debated in parliament

HM Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just of England. There hasn't been a Queen of England since Queen Elizabeth I. Also, you pronounced Buckingham Palace wrong.

That's where the Santa clause costume came from?!!

Nice work explaining the presidential and parliamentary from the 2 most prominent countries that utilize them.

Best explanation I've ever seen. Thank you.

Happy UK election day!

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 The video provides an explanation of two main systems of democratic government: Presidential and Parliamentary. 00:28 The U.S. has an electoral college system where states allocate electors based on their population size. 00:57 In the UK, people directly elect representatives, and the party with the most seats in a General Election forms the government. 01:26 The U.S. President appoints cabinet officers, while UK cabinet appointments do not require confirmation. 01:56 U.S. laws require approval from both houses of Congress and the President's signature. 02:22 The UK Parliament consists of the House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords. 02:52 The U.S. Supreme Court serves as the highest legal authority, while the UK's Supreme Court has less power. 03:21 In the U.S., the President serves as both Head of Government and Head of State. 03:50 In the UK, the Monarch is the official Head of State, but the Prime Minister and Cabinet run the country. 04:17 The video highlights the role of the Monarch and the Prime Minister in the UK. 04:44 The U.S. President can be removed through impeachment, while UK leadership changes due to no-confidence votes or budget defeats. 05:12 Impeachment in the U.S. requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate, which has never happened in history. 05:40 In the UK, losing a no-confidence vote or a budget vote can lead to a General Election. 06:10 The video concludes by summarizing the key differences between the American Presidential and UK Parliamentary systems. Made with HARPA AI

This is a great video. Thank you

This is a great video I love to know the different types of Government around the world especially I like the US electoral college which is unic, but my favourite is the Westminster system (US system is my second favourite)

its a wonderful video explain how Parliamentary [UK] vs. Presidential [US] works

To be honest, as an American, I prefer the Parliamentary, proportional representation system over the US' electoral college & winner take all election system simply based off 2 things: 1.) Proportional representation is more democratic as instead of 1 party taking all the seats because they won the most votes, the party that gets x % of the vote gets x% of the seats. This allows smaller parties to have an opportunity to climb through the ranks & have more equal shot @ entering gov't. 2.) In the EU, they ban &/or heavily limit private money in politics. Even the UK regulates money in politics, unlike the US, although the UK is more lenient on this issue compared to the rest of the EU. In the EU, parties get an equal amount of campaign money which is public money, not private & they also get free media time as well, in pretty much an equal amount. This creates even more opportunity for smaller parties to get into gov't. Overall, I'm really a huge fan of the European Union, it's member states & their political systems as they seem to be more progressive, more in favour of civil liberties & human rights, everyone is given an equal opportunity, green technology is (becoming) mainstream, they have high speed trains, their roads are smoother, everyone is happy, they have a fairly generous asylum system which allows people from other countries of poverty, war & chaos to get a new head start by 1stly if the refugee has no criminal record & their asylum claims are legitimate getting a job & a house to live in, then if they're on their best behavior & they don't commit any crimes, they get citizenship, stricter rules on worker protections, consumer protections, imports, environmental protections, financial institutions, regular banking, investment banking product safety & health standards, human rights protections & criminal law & justice & visaless travel is guaranteed. I'm also planning on, after I graduate High School in June, going to college in the US for the 1st 2 years, then transferring out to the European Union to study & while I'm there, considering getting permanent residence & giving up my US citizenship. This is solely based on the fact that we are no longer the land of opportunity. Our gov't has been selling out to richest people in the country & turning back much of the worker protections, consumer protections, social safety nets, human rights protections, civil liberties protections, banking & financial regulations, environmental protections & so on. In the next few years, we're also expected to have another banking crash which is probably going to be far worse than the last banking crash. Our economic recovery has been mainly fake as, most of our wealth which has been created has gone to the top 1%. In fact, since 2009, 95% of all new income in the US went to the top 1%. Nowadays, about 60% of our GDP is created on Wall St. Also, Dodd Frank, the bill which was passed to regulate the banks back in 2009/2010 is now being repealed provision by provision & little by little. So that means that the only form of banking regulation which had since the Gr8 Recession is now being repealed provision by provision & little by little which scares the fuck out of me. Not only that, the overwhelming majority of the jobs created in this country since the banking crash have been low wage, service sector jobs for major corporations such as Walmart, McDonald's Wendy's & Target & even the factory jobs that we're getting back from China don't even pay well @ all & they're incredibly shitty & dangerous, long hour jobs that make shitty, low quality products. Wages are still stagnating & most people aren't feeling the economic recovery that much @ all. This is NOT the future I want for myself @ all, so I'm afraid that I either attempt to fight the system which isn't going to be easy & possibly even dangerous & a life risking action especially if a Republican wins the presidency in 2016 which means that I could risk being beaten up by police, detained or even killed or I emigrate to another country where no such problems exist/these problems exist nowhere near this extent & start a whole new life for myself. I'm afraid & saddened that I'm going to have to pick the latter choice, as I want to live as long as I can & I want to be successful & live an enjoyable life. This is why I want to emigrate to the European Union as an exchange student, than consider permanent resident.

Fantastic video, thanks

thanks, this video helped me a lot! :)

Parliamentary system do things faster and much efficient

2:13 Actually, according to the constitution, the legislative branch is the FIRST branch of government.

Very nice Video. I learned a lot of new stuff. My english teacher will be very happy about my new knowledge.👍🤝

Really well done

Reasonable comparison, some inaccuracies. The Lords are mostly Life Peers, appointed not by the Queen but in her name by the incumbent government. New peers are created twice a year. They are drawn from all areas the nations life - David Putnam is a peer, so is Seb Coe and Tanny Grey-Thompson. There are a small number of hereditary peers left, their numbers were cut in 1999 and they can no longer pass the right to sit in the Lords to their hair, so their numbers are dwindling. When an election is called it is the Queen who dissolves parliament and when the winner has been established it is she who invites the leader of the winning party to form a government. While this is mostly an horary duty, if a government tried to illegally extend its life she could step in and dissolve parliament without their request/permission. This is one of the checks and balances that keeps us safe. The government could get rid of the Queen if she overstepped her powers or the people willed it, she can do the same to them. It’s a balance. Of course the other thing we subjects of HMQ have, is a head of state who is above politics, who doesn’t have to bother with winning the popular vote every few years and is thus liked, respected and admired by a the majority, as the human face of the nation across the social and political spectrum.

0:49 Michigan is completely distorted

very good summary. thanks

In Uk’s parliament can both house present a bill or only the House of Common can present a bill? Also since the monarch is the headstate does she sign the bill into law and what role does the prime minister do when it come to creating law?

poorly structured video in my opinion, you were jumping from UK to US back and forth, making things and terms confusing

3:00 Um... No. The House of Lords can only delay laws by one year.

Considering the changes that the queen has seen Britain through over the years, her advice would probably be quite useful.

This is a good video, but it would be behooved by effective transitions between discussion of each government.

he Queen's official residence is St. James Palace.

Major error: The Queen is not the Queen of England. She's the Queen of Great Britain. That's why we're a 'united kingdom'.. Basics..

Thank you so very much for your reply but one must remember that the Sovereign has to release her soldiers at the Government's request not the other way round

At 5:11 it says "Impeachment Trial of Andrew Jackson 1868". It was Andrew Johnson who had an impeachment trial not Andrew Jackson.

04:50 I wish this happened in the US... it's hard to become as disengaged and prone to spin or being emamored by personalities when your elected leader must debate his/her opposition on a weekly basis. Having our executive official so isolated hasn't really done much to act as a check on his power in the age of television and multimedia where soundbites and tweets can set an agenda and forestall honest debate.

I left more confused than when I started the video lol

Well done:)

Great video.

I don't think the UK is the best example for a Parliamentary System

History has seen elected dictators, appointed dictators and royal dictators. So many comments here seem to believe that somehow, what is more democratic is automatically more responsible and thus, is better. And yet that is clearly not the case in history. Many great leaders have been dictators or royals, and there have been plenty of elected corrupt politicians. The UK's system has been evolving since the era of William the Conqueror, and has many centuries to develop, and no its not perfect. But considering that the American Presidential system is still developing and in a far less and shorter time and is now showing its faults even more clearer than the Parliamentary system, be careful what you think is better. Just because something is more "democratic" doesn't mean its any better, especially when your electorate is uneducated.

The role of the Queen is pretty much ceremonial nowadays and the power that she does have such as dissolve parliament , appoint the prime minister etc she does by having to act by the advice of her ministers. This in effect means the Queen does what she's told by the leaders of government. Hence she's only for ceremonial purposes

0:31 that map did Michigan dirty 😂

One thing I like about our system in America is that it doesn't lock in that political parties legally have recognition in the government itself like it seems like with all the parliamentary

Even if more countries have followed the American System, one can notice how British System countries are more successful and stable

This is gonna be fun! (Grabs popcorn and looks at comments)

This is a minor issue, but the Legislative Branch is not the 'second branch' of government, it is the first branch. It is the first branch described in the Constitution, and it is *intended* to be the most powerful, relatively speaking. This is because the Legislature is the branch that the American People have the most direct control over. It is much easier to get into contact with your representative or senator than it is to get into contact with the president, and the Representatives can be removed from office much more quickly than the President if the people dislike them.

"How does a bill become a law?" *cue School House Rock*

why do americans and even canadians, say "QUEEN OF ENGLAND ONLY", Queen ELizabeth II is also queen of scots, northern ireland, wales, canada, the UK, australia, new zealand and many other countries as depicted on bank notes and coins... H.M the queen is a constitutional monarch, head of state and millitary commander in chief,,, de jure, de facto is the UK PM,. the elected head of government of the largest UK party as elected every 5 years... australia, new zealand and canada have simmilar "westminster systems of government that is parlimentary democracies, based on the UK system"...

In the words above the illustration at approximately 5:09, it was Andrew Johnson, NOT Jackson (!), who was impeached in 1868.

Brilliant !

Is there any criticism on the House of Lords? It seems like having inherited seats and actual Bishops of the church being required to serve would be controversial. Definitely wouldn't fly here in the US, but maybe it's a cultural thing?

The Prime Minister is not the head of the British Armed forces Her Majesty the Queen has that title .After all they are her soldiers not the government's.

5:12; in 1868, the president who was on the verge of being impeached was Andrew Johnson, not Jackson.

I wouldn't say the Supreme Court 'decides if laws are legal.' It seems it's more accurate to say they determine Constitutionality of laws through Constitution interpretation, hence Justices usually defined by their style of how to read and interpret the text of the Constitution.

Both systems can be bought via lobbying!

I don't understand why the British people allow for the Monarch to have so much power. It's ridiculous.

the thing is that I like about the American system is that you get to choose who your main leaders going to be we get to choose the president as in a parliamentary system you choose which party and then they choose who the prime minister's going to be.

Beautifully described 👀

Might be worth noting the Uk supreme court was previously part of the house of lords

I'll like to see Obama defending his policies every week.

It may be worth noting that the British equivalent of the State of the Union is the queens speech, and that a general election can take place sooner with the Parliaments consent.

would love to see you do one of these for US vs Sweden's form of democracy

Lots of factual errors about how the uk parliamentary system works.

As an American Id much more prefer a multi-party parliament like Canada has. I dont like the two party rule here in america because here youre either a dem or a repub. It makes us so divided and judgemental toward each other and most of our officials are in Congress take AGES to pass ANYTHING. Not to mention our widening class differences here in America. The two party presidential rule was good in theory but I believe a multi party parliamentary rule here would be far more accurate and democratic.

Both us and the uk have majoritarian voting systems, which lead to larger governments over propertional represntation due to focus on selective goods(rather than public goods) for key pivotal localities or constituties or states. also competition is more intense under majoritarian voting rules. Now uk has roughly a parlimentary system, and the us has a presidential- congressional system. The usa has a seperate executive and legislative body, the executive has sole power for proposeing and implementing legislation. the uk the exectuuive and legislaitve bodies are sort off combined, a majority governement has the power to propse and pass legislation. Persson and Tabellini (1999) model shows thatpresidential congressional sysyems lead to smaller governments with a focused selective goods on legislaters locality.

When it comes to electoral college who are those representatives that were chose to decide who become the president. Are those people from the House of Representatives and Senate, but combine?

Umm, the queen is the commander in chief.

Quite good except that it gives the impression that the monarch has any real power. In practice it is a ceremonial position with respect to parliament. However it also acts as an excellent and position for international relationships, having a continuity which political leaders do not. The continuity of ancient ceremony also helps give a gravitas to the formal procedures of the upper and lower houses, which curiously never refer to each other by name, but simply to "in another place", or "an other chamber". The house of lords has very few hereditary peers now, almost all of them, with the exception of the Bishops, being appointed by parliament.

I was curious about this as I was drunk....watched this video and realized I was too drunk to retain any of this information. Great video though.

The House of Representatives and the Senate are actually equal. In total, there are 435 representatives. Each state receives a different number of representatives depending on the population of that state. For example, California has 55 representatives while Montana only has 3. There is a total of 100 senators. 2 are from each state. Congress is like this to give larger states more power in the House and give smaller states equal representation as the large states in the Senate.

Great video! Shame you never mentioned the General Election which is actually taking place today.

This is UK vs USA, not Parliamentary vs Presidential... Besides, the UK used a majority system at district level, as opposed to proportional systems (eg Germany), which are more representatives of the Parliamentary system

What's the difference between The Westminster model and The UK constitution? Are they the same things?

The Congress is the first branch of government, not the second. Article one created the legislature, article two created the executive, and article three created the judiciary. This is because the founding fathers viewed the legislature as the most important.

The UK system is more democratic

In my opinion, the UK's system is better but I'm property basis since I'm British however there are things that must be changed in the UK. Those two of are: 1) Changing the voting system used for general elections to AMS as soon as possible. 2) Reforming the house of lords into a elected upper house which uses PR to choose the members as soon as possible

The Queen is the Commander-in-chief in title/name but it's the Prime Minister who exercises the role on behalf of the Queen.

good video. still there are a lot of differences between presidential democracy thought. one instances is how is elected president or how much duration got the president.

Indian system seems similar to UK except the monarch.. But i like the US system more..

And they are both non-democratic. GCPgray for more info.

Would recommend comparing United States to Canada like they are a bit similar in structure in terms of Supreme Court anyhow I don’t think you can physically change the government structure in UK rather you could in the United States basically through constitutional convention than establishing a new constitution which intern changes the government structure.

These two areboth constituency-based systems. A list-based one makes differences on stability, replacing MEPs, PMs, etc.