Why is "that would be me" more certain than "that is me"?

I have been reading these two posts on would: Why "that would be me"? (part 1) & Why "that would be me"? (part 2)

If you want a domestic SUV, then the best choice would be the Ford Escape Hybrid.

If you want functional air filters, the best choice would have to be K&N Air Filter.

If you really want to use WMA, the best choice would be 2-pass encoding.

If you really need a fighter bay, the best choice by far would be a manta bay.

Very similar examples exist with present-tense forms of to be:

If you want real wood, the best choice is engineered flooring.

If you want to stay in colonial Quito, the best choice is the Hotel Real Audiencia.

If you want HD programming, Dish Network is the best choice.

The post and its comments say that with respect to perceived speaker (un)certainty, perhaps the preterite makes the speaker seem more rather than less certain, by emphasizing that the logic of the hypothetical situation is being carefully evaluated.

But I don't fully understand what on earth the logic here is. The auther mentioned this usage of would is quite fashionable. If so, it will account for the majority of would usages. Is it true?

Solution 1:

I would argue (wink, wink) that use of the modal in those examples does not make the speaker seem more certain, but less confrontational, and therefore more effective if he is trying to convince someone to think a certain way or buy a certain thing. "Would" would be subjunctive if English still had a subjunctive, and the very purpose of the subjunctive mood is to hedge, or simply soften a declarative statement.