ChatGPT discusses the idea of a multi-person presidency from the Founding Fathers to the present day below.
This is something The Prosperos needs to consider or at least discuss. If the three-person Executive Council acted, in effect, as dean of the school, then the burden of this job could be equally divided. Another option would be to have a rotating dean on a yearly basis among the three-person Executive Council.–Mike Zonta, BB Editor
ChatGPT:
Several delegates at the Constitutional Convention were open to — or explicitly proposed — a multi-person (plural) executive instead of a single president. They weren’t a unified faction, but they tended to share certain backgrounds and political experiences that made them wary of concentrated power.
Here are the key figures and what shaped their thinking:
Edmund Randolph (Virginia)
Role: Governor of Virginia; introduced the Virginia Plan
Background:
- From a powerful Virginia political family
- Deeply involved in state government after independence
- Worked closely with legislative bodies
Why he favored a plural executive:
- Proposed that the executive be chosen by Congress and possibly consist of more than one person
- Feared a single executive would resemble a monarch
- Trusted collective decision-making over individual authority
George Mason (Virginia)
Role: Influential delegate; author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights
Background:
- Wealthy planter, but also a theorist of republican liberty
- Strong advocate of rights and limits on power
- Suspicious of centralized authority
Why he leaned toward council-type ideas:
- Deep fear of executive tyranny
- Supported adding a council to restrain the executive
- Preferred diffused power rather than a single dominant figure
⚖️ Roger Sherman (Connecticut)
Role: Key compromise-builder (Great Compromise)
Background:
- Self-made man (shoemaker → lawyer → politician)
- Strong believer in legislative supremacy
- Experienced in colonial and state assemblies
View:
- Didn’t strongly push a plural executive, but
- Wanted the executive to be subordinate to Congress, which aligns with distrust of a strong single leader
Elbridge Gerry (Massachusetts)
Role: Delegate who later refused to sign the Constitution
Background:
- Merchant and politician shaped by Revolutionary-era distrust of authority
- Strong opponent of centralized power
Why he supported multiple executives:
- Argued a single executive was the “foetus of monarchy”
- Believed multiple executives would:
- prevent abuse
- reduce corruption
- check ambition
⚔️ George Clinton (New York governor)** (not at the Convention but influential)
Background:
- Anti-Federalist leader
- Military and political figure with strong state-first loyalties
Relevance:
- Represented a broader political current that distrusted centralized executive power
- Would likely have favored shared or weak executive authority
What they had in common
1. Deep fear of monarchy
- All had just fought a war against King George III
- A single executive looked too much like a king
2. State-government experience
- Many came from states where:
- executives were weak
- power was held by legislatures or councils
3. Republican political philosophy
- Believed liberty depends on:
- dividing power
- preventing any one person from dominating
4. Distrust of human nature
- Assumed leaders are prone to ambition and corruption
- A plural executive would force internal checks
⚖️ Why they lost the argument
Delegates like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton pushed back:
- A single executive provides:
- clear accountability (you know who’s responsible)
- decisiveness, especially in crises
- A council could lead to:
- paralysis
- blame-shifting
Bottom line
The advocates of a multi-person executive were:
- Products of the Revolution
- Shaped by fear of concentrated power
- Influenced by state systems that avoided strong governors
They weren’t trying to be radical — they were trying to avoid recreating monarchy in a new form.
A few countries actually do use plural (multi-person) executives today — and they show how the idea the framers debated can work in practice.
Switzerland — the clearest example
Federal Council of Switzerland
- 7-member executive council jointly serves as head of state and government
- Members are elected by the legislature
- Each runs a department (like ministers), but all major decisions are collective
- The presidency rotates yearly — no permanent “leader”
How it works:
- Decisions are made by consensus or majority vote
- Publicly, they present a unified position (even if they disagreed privately)
Why it succeeds:
- Strong political culture of compromise
- Multi-party power-sharing is built into the system
This is the closest modern version of what some framers feared—or hoped for.
Bosnia and Herzegovina — a rotating presidency
Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- 3 presidents at once:
- one Bosniak
- one Serb
- one Croat
- Chair rotates every 8 months
Purpose:
- Prevent domination by any one ethnic group after the Bosnian War
Challenge:
- Frequent gridlock and division
- Shows the downside of plural executives in deeply divided societies
San Marino — dual heads of state
Captains Regent
- Two co-heads of state serve together
- Terms last only 6 months
Purpose:
- Prevent concentration of power (a very old system, dating back centuries)
Interesting feature:
- Extremely short terms act as a built-in safeguard against abuse
European Union — a partial example
European Commission
- Not a country, but:
- Executive authority is shared among commissioners from different member states
- Led by a president, but power is still collective and negotiated
What these systems show
Advantages of plural executives
- ✅ Prevents concentration of power
- ✅ Forces compromise and negotiation
- ✅ Can represent diverse groups
Disadvantages
- ❌ Slower decision-making
- ❌ Risk of deadlock
- ❌ Harder to assign responsibility (“who’s to blame?”)
⚖️ Back to the U.S. framers
The delegates at the Constitutional Convention ultimately rejected this model because:
- They wanted energy and speed in the executive (especially for war and crises)
- They valued clear accountability
- Figures like Alexander Hamilton argued a single executive would be more effective
Bottom line
Plural executives are not just theoretical — they exist and function today.
- In stable, consensus-driven societies (like Switzerland) → they can work very well
- In divided societies (like Bosnia) → they can become fragile or gridlocked