In 1882, Frank R. Stockton wrote his most famous story, The Lady or the Tiger.  The gist of this story was that a low-born courtier has a love affair with the king's daughter, is discovered, and is forced to face a sort of trial by ordeal.  The way the trial works is that the young man gets to choose between two doors.  Behind one of the doors is a nasty, hungry tiger that is guaranteed to tear him to bits.  Behind the other door is a beautiful young woman, whom the young man will then have to marry on the spot.  Of course, the king's daughter can and does find out who (and what) will be behind each door, and her lover depends on her to signal to him which door he should open.  Which she does.  The tricky bit, which Stockton (smirking evilly, no doubt) leaves to his readers to decide, is whether the princess will give her lover up to this other woman (whom she hates, by the way) or prefer to see him gobbled down by a tiger.  This story was so popular, that I'm surprised no one, in the grand Hollywood tradition, has done a sequel to it.  So, here we go ...

    There was once a semi-barbaric country where conflicts of great moment were settled by games of (supposedly) impartial and (theoretically) incorruptible chance.  So, for example, if a married couple wanted to divorce, the rights and wrongs of the matter and who got what pieces of real estate and which kids were settled by coin flips, rather than by lengthy litigation involving expensive attorneys.  And the results were no worse.
    All civil matters were settled in this manner.  As for criminal cases, they were typically settled using the <fill in the blank> or tiger model.  The accused was allowed - nay, required! - to choose one of two doors.  Behind one was a tiger.  Behind the other was the <fill in the blank>.  If the accused chose the tiger door, he was adjudged, and swiftly, "guilty."  If he chose the <fill in the blank> door, he was "innocent." 
    What went in the <fill in the blank> space depended on the nature of the alleged crime.  If it were a robbery of any kind, the game would be "the loot or the tiger."  So, an "innocent" person would be rewarded with whatever it was he was alleged to have stolen, while a "guilty" party would be ripped to shreds by the tiger.  If the crime were identity theft, the game might become "the credit card or the tiger."  The "innocent" would be rewarded with a platinum Mistacard with no credit limit, while a "guilty" party would be ripped to shreds by the tiger.  For transgressions of a sexual nature, the choice would be "the lady or the tiger," or more rarely, "the gentleman or the tiger."  The "innocent" would get to marry the lady that had fallen, as it were, into his lap, while the "guilty" - you guessed it - would be ripped to shreds by the tiger.   By now, you may be wondering why the second alternative was always a tiger.  Experiments had been done with other alternatives, but in the end, everyone agreed that there was nothing quite as satisfying to watch as someone being ripped to shreds by a tiger.
    Then there was political crime.  How to "fill in the blank" for political crimes was a bit of a conundrum.  Even an "innocent" could not be allowed to have the candidate of his or her choice.  Therefore, it was decided to use the "lady or the tiger" model for political crimes, as well.  The lady (or gentleman) would be someone who held correct political views, since an "innocent" person couldn't possibly want someone who held incorrect political views.
    And so begins our story.  It happened that a young man named Vota was accused of political thought crime.  He was specifically accused of having suggested that perhaps the king should not be appointed by the wealthiest people in the land.  As a matter of fact, this was a slander.  Vota had never suggested any such thing, but that was of no consequence.  The charge had been made, and the Trial by Impartial and Incorruptible Chance would have to take place.  Besides, there hadn't been a good shredding by tiger in at least two months.
    As it happened, Vota had a good friend among the tiger tenders.  His name was Phil.  Phil knew what was going to be behind each door, so he contrived to meet with Vota before the trial.  Had Phil been caught, he would have been ... well, you know the drill by now.
    "Vota," whispered Phil, "I'm going to be the one to place the tiger, so I'll be able to signal you which door to pick."
    "Great," said Vota. "Do you know who the lady is?"
    "It's Jonna."
    "Ok," said Vota, "I want the tiger."
    "I ... beg your pardon?" sputtered Phil, who was thinking, I'm risking my life for this?
    "I want the tiger," repeated Vota. "I've dated Jonna a couple of times.  She spends too much time on the menu."
    "Too ... much ... time ...?" muttered Phil.
    "On the menu.  Yes," said Vota. "First, she said she wanted the broiled scallops.  Then, when the waiter came back, she said, no, she wanted the rack of lamb instead.  I can't stand flip-floppers."
    "Whereas," said Phil slowly and carefully, "the tiger is going to tear you to pieces."
    "'Rip to shreds' is the preferred terminology," corrected Vota. "Yeah, I like that.  It shows strong character and dependable leadership.  You can always depend on the tiger to rip you to shreds.  It makes me feel safe."
    "Uh, safe?" babbled Phil. "How do you define 'safe?'  Would that be the same as 'dead' to you?"
    "The tiger makes me feel safe from uncertainty," said Vota.
    "It'll kill you," said Phil.
    "But it won't change its mind about scallops and lamb," said Vota. "And it won't ask me what color I think the drapes should be.  Oh, and another thing!"
    "There's another thing?"
    "Oh, yes," said Vota. "About Jonna.  She's too complicated.  Always talking about looking at all sides of a problem, about different ways of doing things, about nuances.  The tiger doesn't do nuances."
    "It'll chew you up," said Phil. "And swallow you."
    "But it won't make me think," said Vota. "Or make any decisions."
    "Well," said Phil, "I'll just give you a signal.  Right hand for right door, left hand for left."

    And so he did.  And so I leave it with all of you:  Which came out of the opened door ...  Nah, I'll tell you.  Phil signaled "right" for the tiger, but since Phil and Vota were facing each other, Vota thought he meant the other right, ... and he wound up with the flip-flopping, nuanced lady, after all.  Only the tiger lived happily ever after.