In the first-past-the-post system, there is a high threshold to pass, but once that happens, kingmakers can kings are not that far apart. The first 8-10% of vote share in an election will get you zero seats, but by the time you get to 33% vote share, you'll have a majority.
And if the leading party gets 40% or more vote share, it will sweep the poll. In Delhi last time, 53% vote share was enough to win 95% of the seats. This disproportionate rewards from vote shares is well understood by all, and makes pre-election jostling potent.
The situation in MH may repeat in Bihar. A coalesced opposition will force the ruling groups also to remain in coalition, with regional partners among them extracting a disproportionate share of power. Without getting out of FPTP, national parties can't crack this.
There are two alternatives. One is to have run-off elections, which are held in two rounds, and the top two finishers in each round then go on to a second round so that the eventual winner gets 50% or more of the votes. This creates a kind of connect with the majority of voters.
Another option is dual-member PR - in each seat there is an elected individual winner, but also a vote for parties. That allows vote share for parties to be separately revealed from votes of candidates, and credit assigned to them too. This will separate kingmakers from kings.
Trying to fix the governance system without fixing the electoral system is like expecting a backwards-facing cart to pull the horse forward.
