I don't see what is wrong with draws. I think they're an important part of the game: my personal style includes quick decisive wars that don't leave my enemies dead, but rather just crippled to the point where it's against their interest to try to fight back.
For example, say you're England, and you've just pwned France: fleet in mao, army in Brest, about to take Paris. Let's assume no big northern Russia; maybe Germany and Russia have started fighting. Once you have Paris the dividends of attacking France fall dramatically, since taking Marseilles would cost you a whole year of positioning, and you may very well be locked out of the Mediterranean by then.
At that point, the rational decision is to "vassalize" France; fighting benefits neither of you two (opportunity cost), while working with France allows you to either take the Mediterranean by storm, or stabbing Germany if you feel like it. And rationally France should go along with it as well, as its clearly the best option.
If you take draws out of the game, France in that example would have a much lower incentive to work with England; fighting against England gives it a say 1% chance of solo victory, and fighting alongside England gives it a say 5% chance; there is very little difference between those two scenarios, so France would probably just give in to emotion and try to make sure England can't win.
Isn't that a really bad thing?
And I mean sure, that's a somewhat extreme example, but less extreme cases pop up in almost every game, where a "vassalage" is in the best interest of both parties.