Personally, the subjective element of voting is one of the major things that drew me to mercs in the first place. And I'm not talking about "politics" at all. I'm talking about the art of persuasion.
When I first joined mercs, I believed that, if you argued long enough and well enough, you could convince voters of nearly anything. My enthusiasm in that regard has been somewhat tempered over time, but it's still possible to convince a lot of people of a lot of things. And that's how it ought to be. Victory should not necessarily go to the one who has the objectively stronger team, but to the one who is more silver-tongued. Few things in mercs are more satisfying than watching one's arguments genuinely sway undecided voters to one's side. (And again, this has nothing to do with factions or that kind of crap. I mean legitimate neutrals.)
On that note, Gen, I should mention that you completely misunderstood my earlier comment by taking it out of context. When I say that mercs is not and should not be about who would "actually" win in a fight, I am rejecting the notion that the objectively stronger team automatically deserves to win. Thus the emphasis on "actually." Fight topics are still a central part of the game. But if you can trick voters into believing that an oversized turtle shell would somehow solo the enemy team, then more power to you.
That's my take on it, anyway! I figure a lot of people disagree.
--
another place and time, without a great divide, and we could be flying deadly high