The idea of these coalitions is to focus upon only one issue, so that other issues that divide people will not make action impossible. Example:
Person A supports the latest war. Person B is against the latest war. Person C is against the latest war. Person A supports the right to be armed. Person B supports the right to be armed. Person C is against the right to be armed.If these three persons talk to each other, they will find that they can not form a political party that has a coherent program on a variety of issues. They can not vote for the same candidate, even though there is a majority of two thirds (a large majority that is) for two of these issues. However because they are unable to unite and vote for one candidate, they remain powerless, divided, apathic. This leaves the ruling classes to decide to do whatever they wish (which usually means that they want to get richer and more powerful themselves.)
This fundamental problem with Representative democracy is to a degree solved, at least at the grassroots, by forming separate coalitions around single issues. Everyone can then join in a variety of such coalitions. The larger coalitions will then more likely get their wishes honored, especially on issues that are important enough for people to determine on whom they will then vote. It is perhaps not a perfect solution, but it breaks the apathy to a degree.
Coalition against the latest war: 2 members Coalition for the latest war: 1 members Coalition for the right to bear arms: 2 members Coalition against the right to bear arms: 1 membersThe two coalitions with the most members will likely produce the most propaganda, influence the most politicians, and sway the most voters to vote for candidates that support their cause. This tactic obviously means that the coalitions are open to all who want to be active and useful for the cause, while maintaining a tolerance to all kinds of opinions on other issues - or even ignore that which can divide.