Accepted answers on controversial topics on Meta pose a very real problem.
They give an advantage to whatever position the asker of the question supports, as he can mark that as accepted and it will bubble to the top, whether or not it's the answer that the most people agree with, regardless of how well it is actually supported.
To newer users, accepted answers on meta appear to be the correct answer, and they might believe that it marks the policy that the community has decided to go with.
Accepted answers give the appearance that the matter is closed and no longer up for discussion.
I'm a relative newbie, but have been around and very active for the last 4 months. I very much doubt I was alone in not understanding that accepted answers are generally meaningless on Meta.
For one example of this, in the topic of What's the difference between FortressCraft and Minecraft? Who cares?, the community seems to have yet to reach much of a consensus, but an answer is already marked as accepted. As mentioned above, I think this makes that position seem "official" to newer users who don't know better, and discourages them from participating in a discussion that already seems to be closed.
My original request was that I would like to see the ability to accept an answer removed from Meta, but I was very quickly convinced that this was too harsh an approach. If, as indicated, it accepted answers truly mean nothing, I'd like to see them not bubble to the top of the sort order. All it does is serve create confusion and bias.
Update: My example question was kind of bad, since it was originally opened in September 2011 and just now came up for additional discussion. So I don't mean to imply that the asker is doing anything tricky to support his position. But the principle holds.