It makes a ton of difference actually. I can speak for Norway, currently we have 9* parties in Parliament, 3 on the left, 3 on the right and 3 in the middle that could align themselves with either side, and they do flip from time to time.
If the coalitions formed beforehand we would very likely put the Communist Party in with the left, but Labour actually prefers to work with the Conservatives (their main rival) over the Communists most of the time.
More parties also gives way more nuanced choices, we have 3 parties that have environment and climate change as a top priority, one on the left, one on the right and one in the middle meaning that if climate change is your biggest concern we actually have real alternatives. To continue on the climate rail; the power realtion between the Liberal Party (right/green) and the Progress Party (hard right) will matter a lot if the Conservative party get form a government after the elections.
We see a lot of deals going across the traditional left/right line which makes the political process and campaigning a lot less toxic, and if some big issue is not raised by the big players some a smaller party can campaign on that or we can even start new parties.
*There’s also a non-party representative that in essence got elected to save a local hospital. Kinda wild that the locals got so pissed that enough of them “threw away” there votes to get her elected on a single issue.
That said, there are obviously problems with too many parties, but I think around 6-10 is probably good.
ValiantDust@feddit.org 1 week ago
I think it does make a difference. When the parties are voted for before forming the coalition, you know exactly how many people supported them and their policies. Then the coalition is negotiated based on that. If you form the coalition first, then only the majorities inside the coalition matter for who has the most say, you have no way of knowing what’s important to the voters.