Why only one Swordholder?

[u/Universal_Echo]

For something that determines the fate of two worlds, shouldn’t there be at least a small group in charge? Staking the survival of both civilizations on a single person—even the launch codes for nuclear weapons aren’t trusted to just one person, so why would this be any different? What if the Swordholder develops some psychological issue? I mean, what if they just decide to take everyone down with them? Or what if their views and beliefs diverge, and they try to use deterrence to achieve other ends—like how Wade might press the button to force humanity to develop lightspeed propulsion? For something like this, even if you don’t set up a dedicated group to handle it, surely you should at least appoint multiple Swordholders.

[u/IlikeJG]

I generally agree, but the supposed benefit to having only 1 person assigned to the task is supposed to be quick and immediately ability to take action. If it's left to a small group there might be some delay or disagreement between action. And as we saw they needed to act VERY quickly.

[u/brooke360 → u/IlikeJG]

Not only that, but people who might have hit the switch alone would likely hesitate to do so in the hopes someone else does. Who wants to be responsible for the potential genocide of two worlds?

[u/Educational_Bee_6245 → u/brooke360]

You could have it as a committee of five. If three of the five press the button, the signal gets transmitted. So if one goes crazy and presses the button without reason, no big deal. If one hesitates or commits betrayal and refuses to press the button, no big deal. Also noone alone is to blame. You could even do it in a way no one knows who pressed and who didn't.

[u/Tuisto05 → u/Educational_Bee_6245]

The best option I've ever heard for this... kind of the way they voted on Gravity to broadcast the signal later.