Separated vs Congressional Presidency

An aspect of the creation of the executive branch that remains significant is the controversy in regards to whether a congressional or separated President should be chosen. The reason for the significance of this choice lies in the various differences between these two types of Presidencies and its effect on present governance. This effect would primarily be created through the changes in the manner in which the President would be able to execute decisions. Furthermore, had a congressional Presidency been chosen the term period would have been extended and non repetitive. The issue that remained was whether a congressional chosen President would be truly checked in terms of power. Would it truly be efficient to have the executive ratify treaties and be checked by a two-thirds majority or would it be better to allow the Senate to control these aspects ?
It would appear that a congressional Presidency might have some advantageous aspects to it. Presently, the views around the executive are mired in negative opinions about the efficiency of the branch. This may not entirely be due to the leader but the position he occupies. Even though a two-thirds majority would provide a prudent check on the branch it also creates issues in terms of partisanship. Furthermore in terms of efficiency and executive orders the two term four year period is also one which might be less efficient due to lack of sufficient time for the President to formulate and execute his plans. By creating the possibility for re election the President has to not only focus on his final orders but also on the forthcoming election. A seven year period with no prospects of reelection would provide for a the full attention over an elongated period to maximize efficiency. Also by creating an election process that is through the public and not the government the position becomes one which sways with public opinion.