Because that's what happened on Wednesday when the Greens announced they had a deputy leader double-up with Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters.

There are only 11 people in their very manageable party room. And – as one mathematician pointed out – one fifth of them are now deputy leaders.

Combine them with the leader and whip positions and more than a third of the Greens now have an elected leadership gig within the parliamentary party.

What next? Certificates for turning up to Parliament on time? Gold stars for mentioning "renewable energy" in every interview?

The co-deputy decision certainly played right into stereotypes about the environmentally-rooted party. Just like hippies share the eggplant-growing and breastfeeding in a commune, so too do the Greens share the leadership in Canberra.

And yet, the concept of leadership sharing is not a new-fangled leftie invention.

Way back in the day, Ancient Romans "embraced" the idea of co-leadership for more than four centuries before it was booted out by dictatorship (hi, Caesar), according to Dartmouth College professor David Sally.

More recently, there have been moves in the corporate community to have more than one person in the top spot. "The world is becoming increasingly complex, and the rate of change is only accelerating," leadership expert Rajeev Peshawaria wrote in Forbes. "Today, no one individual has all the answers."

And while suitwearers are not rushing to take his advice en masse, co-leadership is not unheard of. Over the past 25 years, more than 20 companies in the Fortune 500 have had co-CEOs. Closer to home, Westfield is led by Steven and Peter Lowy.

Even on the sporting paddock, the Sydney Swans and Greater Western Sydney Giants have co-captains.

As for the Greens? When new leader Richard Di Natale was quizzed about the set-up in his victory press conference, he was more upbeat than a bongo convention on Mt Kosciuszko.

Ludlam and Waters had put the idea to the Greens party room, he explained.

"Now I know it doesn't fit what normally happens in this place, but God knows this place needs some modernising. And I think it is a terrific proposal."

Di Natale added that he was sick of the "negative, partisan, adversarial stuff going on at the moment and over the past few years".

"It's got worse and I'm going to try to do my bit to change it."

His predecessor, Christine Milne, then piped in with the ol' work-life balance chestnut.

"If you want a new generation of people to come into Parliament from across all political parties ... you have to offer them a way of life that is actually reasonable," she reasoned, noting that the 24-hour media cycle meant "you're on duty all the time".

"Being able to spread the load and take into account people's family commitments is [important] if you want people who have got families in the Parliament."

It is hard to disagree with Di Natale and Milne's arguments.

Di Natale is of course correct that the political world – not known for its genteelness – has distinguished itself with some particularly nasty stuff in recent years. While one would never be so bold as to suggest you could banish power hunger with co-leadership, at least you can give politicians a larger menu on which to snack.

And it is certainly true that working at Parliament is not just family unfriendly, it is actively hostile to politician's lives, health and sanity.

Even a humble backbencher's job is breathtaking in its busyness. Contrary to the constant refrain that politicians are bums taking the public wallet for a ride, most of them work every day of the week, are away from home at least half of the year and are the first port of call when something goes wrong for any one of their 100,000 constituents.

So why not let people share the extra travel, meetings and media that come with a leadership position?

Although it's not just about work load. Peshawaria was right when he said the world is becoming more complex. When you think of things like climate change, home-grown terrorism, tanking revenues and ballooning expenditures, the problems politics faces are less and less easy to solve.

You don't just need multiple PhDs from Harvard to tackle this stuff. You need multiple brains.

At the same time, voters expect more and more from their leaders. We want them to be "real" people who understand what life is like for everyday dudes. And yet we also crave someone with charisma, style and invigorating visions for the nation.

The Greens have suggested that in time they could have co-leaders, not just co-deputies. But perhaps this is setting the bar too low.

Is a co-prime ministership out of the question?

If we had co-PMs, would we still see ideas like Prince Philip's knighthood get up? Or a retreat from the "greatest moral challenge of our time"? Or attacks on "men in blue ties"?

Roll your eyes, but while the job of prime minister has always been a big one, it's become too big for any one person to do properly.

Judith Ireland is a national political reporter and columnist.

Follow us on Twitter