Many voters think that splitting control of the government between the two major political parties is a good idea. It seems obvious that the two sides will have to compromise to produce results, and extreme policies can be avoided.

Right now, there is split control in both Washington and Augusta, but the view about divided control turns out to be wrong. The president and the U.S. Senate are under Democratic control with the Republicans running the House of Representatives. In Maine, the governor is a Republican, and the Legislature is controlled by the Democrats.

In theory, new laws should be rolling out, reflecting compromises designed to give each side something it can claim as an achievement. Instead, we are experiencing deadlock. Even worse, the gap between the two sides seems to be widening, and relationships between many of our leaders have become personally poisoned.

Many factors contribute to this situation. Some of them are institutional, while others reflect the dominance of the drive for political gain over the need for good government.

The top institutional factor is the veto. If a president or governor rejects a bill passed by a legislative body dominated by the opposing party, it takes a two-thirds vote to override such opposition. And in a polarized setting, two-thirds is hard to come by.

If nothing else, party loyalty plays a role. Legislators act increasingly like they were in a parliamentary system, where members virtually always must vote to support their prime minister, no matter what their own views.

In Maine, we see the curious situation of GOP legislators voting to support the governor’s veto of a bill, which they had joined with the Democrats to support unanimously.

In Washington, the certainty of a veto, to be sustained by the Senate, drives the House to vote repeatedly on bills with no chance of adoption whose only purpose is to stake out the GOP’s position.

National law-making is further hindered by the extensive use of the Senate filibuster. The president cannot even name his own department heads or make judicial appointments because of the GOP’s ability to deny the votes needed to end debate.

Also missing is the sense that the chief executive, elected by all the people, ought to be given the chance to govern.

At the federal level, even though President Barack Obama was re-elected by a good majority, the GOP seems to persist in its mission to discredit his presidency and prevent it from being a success. Many Democrats believe the underlying reason for this deep opposition is racism, a belief that does not promote cooperation.

At the state level, where Gov. Paul LePage was elected by a minority in a three-way race, Republicans won’t produce another candidate for next year’s election, so they must defend him. By the same token, the Democrats continually oppose him.

While Obama has perhaps been overly accommodating to the point of fruitless appeasement of the opposition, LePage has been confrontational. He appears to treat the Legislature, under Republicans or Democrats, as if he still were the head of a private company and legislators were his employees.

The Democrats have been confronted in Washington by a highly disciplined GOP that is in no mood to compromise. The Democrats in Augusta have faced a highly opinionated governor who also is in no mood to compromise.

The Democrats have responded badly. At the federal level, they have refrained from laying out comprehensive, middle-of-the-road policies. Instead, they mark time and wait for voters to reject the GOP. In Augusta, the Democrats have thrown away political advantage by surprisingly denying a sitting governor the opportunity to address a legislative committee. He was infuriated.

This divisiveness is compounded by the length of our political campaigns. Right after one election, the next campaign begins, giving officials no breathing space to develop policies through compromise.

Voters may have condemned “politics as usual,” but they produced results. Today’s divided governments are producing uncertainty, revulsion and some fear, but little needed legislation.

To be sure, if a voter wants less government, divided control with continued paralysis may be satisfactory. For those with greater expectations from government, it is not working.

In the end, the responsibility falls on voters. If the political parties choose to act like we have an essentially parliamentary system, perhaps people will vote accordingly.

That means voters may increasingly pay attention to party affiliation and make voting for ideological soulmates the top priority. The coming elections may see straight party voting grow, with voters favoring control of both the executive and legislative branches by a single party.

— Gordon L. Weil is an author, publisher, consultant, and former official of international organizations and the U.S. and Maine governments.