TED Conversations

Michele McMillan

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What if the role of president was divided into 6 people, and they had to come to a consensus?

What if the role of president was divided into 6 people, and they had to come to a consensus? How would you decide 6 different positions, as opposed to one? How would the qualities you look for change?

progress indicator
  • thumb
    May 31 2011: I have to agree with the previous commenters. With the number and complexity of the issues that presidents have to face today, more often than not it would take too long to get to a consensus about any decision. By the time that happens, the decision will have lost most of its effectiveness in terms of solving a situation, and likewise, if a quick solution was needed, I doubt that the presidents could truly come to a consensus. If you wanted try something like this, I would say only two presidents. For most leadership positions, two people per position is the maximum. Any more than that, and usually, though not always, people spend most of their time discussing the issue and and whether or not they'll compromise on a particular detail and nothing gets done.
  • thumb
    May 31 2011: firstly, each person would have to be elected. more elections will not appear to anyone.

    secondly, you need a strong president. one who can act on a whim and you entrust to make vital, fast decisions on our behalf. with more than 1 president, nothing would get done. too much time talking and disagreeing instead of tackling the major issues we would need them to.

    thirdly, it is too complicated. the president has to get approval from congress and the US senate in the US i think already! if there was debates before debates - it would be too complicated and again, nothing would get done.
  • thumb
    May 30 2011: miracle