ppl get mad at the winner and want to topple them

That's how it should be. If one player has a significant lead then good players should be trying to stop them. I find it much worse when losing player(s) continue to enable someone to a win.

In a well-played game of Risk, the leader is constantly getting knocked down by the other players and replaced by a new leader... ad infinitum... until the chance of the cards determines things with an opportunely timed cashing in for huge numbers of armies.

In winner take all Diplomacy how does one overcome what should be a constant shuffling of alliances knocking down the (new) leader? There is no chance of a card deal to break the deadlock like there is in Risk. I guess this is why there are so many draws... Would it be right to say that one should never be able to secure a win against a set of equally able opponents?

u're also more likely to get stabed if u have 16 or 17 sc's

Could it perhaps be your style and not your being the largest?

no, i think ppl either want to win instead of u or get a bigger share of the pie, human nature

Try to understand what the other players are playing for. Some are for points, some are for kicks and chuckles, others for reputation.

Knowing what people want and getting that for them while you get what you want is the key. If you are surrounded in a game of people intent on Balance of Power play, then try a little distraction or to develop something other than power for them to balance against. Create a picture of the board for the various players so that they can see how to get what they want.
And by the way, by the time you are at 16 or 17 it is way too late for most Balance of Power play.

If EVERYONE is playing for the win (and only the win), and if everyone is a smart and calculating player, then a game should theoretically play on forever, with eventually three players left.

The only way an early leader should be able to keep going on for the win is if someone is playing for second place, enacting a grudge, or tactically stupid. (Or NMRing of course)

Its a mark of a very good player to come from second place and convince at least one person of good intention long enough to get a victory.

Of course, I would say that possibly none of the games in php meet the above perfect standard.

@ Leon Rey17
If you are the biggest on the map (e.g. 10-14 centers) and you have only enemies then you have done a poor job diplomatically (or backstabbed too early). Pretty hard to turn things around in the late game - you should have prepared it earlier. Sometimes this includes keeping some other players alive as minions (vassals) - as their goal (survival) does not conlict with your (winning). You have to watch the whole map balance - not just your headcount - if you end up with 14 centers against 3 other players with 7 centers each you're most likely dead - and there's nothing you can do about it if the other players are reasonably good.

In a perfect world all games will be a 7-way draw. Just like any other game/sport. But you never really get this in real life :)

http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/resources/strategy/articles/wielding_too_much_power.htm
I think what you are talking about can be classified as Early Leader Syndrome.

Tall Poppy...

There is also a lot to be said for the game culture background that the game is played in. European FtF players are more often very very keen Balance of Power players and by that I mean from the very start. They also play to 1907
games with the player with the most centers being the winner and having a huge bonus so that no matter what the second place finish is , the player with the most centers on another board will be ahead.
So Balance of Power concepts also mean different things around the world... just another reason why I love this game and hobby.