Sorry; it’s been too long since I paid attention. The point still stands; there are two forces, whether individual parties or coalitions of component parties, that dominate.
I’d actually disagree with @Rick Webb’s original argument and argue that that’s likely to be better for ordinary people than two megalithic parties as the Americans have. The major parties in the coalition know that if they piss off too many of the smaller parties, they risk losing them to the opposing coalition (and possibly some of their party’s traditional supporters, who become dissatisfied with their coalition-building). You’d likely either get gridlock (as the Americans have had for years) or a much more responsive system.
In theory, of course, there’s no difference between theory and practice. In practice…
Again, all this presupposes a transparent, honest, fair system. Too many people here (Singapore) like to brag about how “efficient” the Government is and often use India as a straw man to “make their point”. What they, and too many of their US counterparts, fail to consider is that many things can be made efficient by a Government so motivated, from serving the people to enriching the wealthy and empowering the powerful. Many places could do with a bit less unipolar efficiency in their system, just as others’ citizens would love to have (but aren’t willing to skill up for) a system with less institutional bipolar gridlock.