Would a triumvirate Presidency make the executive branch more democratic, or would it simply make things worse?

A triumvirate presidency appears like a solid plan at first glance, but it is far too complicated and would slow down the process of the executive branch. The theory behind the triumvirate presidency is that three presidents make for a more democratic decision-making process at the executive level. However, this confuses the whole idea of the presidency, which is one man, one branch, part of a checks and balances system. The reason that Congress was created was for equal representation for the masses. The president is meant to be the figurehead of our nation, and splitting that one man into thirds would result in chaos. Splitting up duties among three presidents would be a daunting task; each man would take offense to any loss of power. Heated rivalries would develop among these men causing instability in our nation's executive branch. Even if these duties could be fairly split, the question must still be raised about which independent party will be represented to complete the presidential trifecta.

Diagram of US Federal Government and American Unio...

English: The task of making foreign policy in the ...

United States

Since none of the Independent parties receive even close to the number of votes as the two major parties, the Independents would actually be getting an unfair amount of representation in the executive branch. This system might be more feasible in a nation with a three party system, but not in the great US of A. Foreign Relations would suffer because a visit from one third of our president would be an insult. In every situation, the question will always be "Well, whose duty is this?". This puts more of a stress on the executive branch than there needs to be. The American people would also lack the face of stability and encouragement that a single president has to offer. In addition, the decision making process would be drastically slowed down. Three men would...