「分立政府」不僅是越來越常發生的正治現象，也是近十年來政治學研究的重要議題之一。在同時舉行的選舉中是否產生分立政府，取決有多少選民分裂投票。因此，如何解釋分裂投票的發生就影響如何解讀分立政府的形成。如果分裂投票是一個「手段」，則分立政府就是選民有意促成的結果；如果分裂投票只是個「現象」，則分立政府就只是選民在不同選舉中偏好不同政黨的結果。 從「空間理論」的觀點來看，若政黨在同時舉行的兩項選舉中只有一個政策位置，則真誠投票與策略性投票僅能解釋部分的分裂投票。但當政黨應該有，而且事實上也有，兩個政策位置時，空間理論就能簡明地解釋分裂投票與分立政府的關係。分裂投票只是選民在不同的選舉中，分別選擇政策位置最接近政黨的現象：而分立政府也就只是在不同選舉中，位置最接近大多數選民的政黨有所不同而產生的結果。分裂投票只是個現象而非手段，也就不需要賦予分立政府太多諸如選民要讓政黨彼此制衡或追求中庸政策等的意涵。

Divided government is not only a political phenomenon, but also becomes one of the most salient issues in the study of politics. When two elections are held at the same time, whether divided government appears depends on how many voters split their votes. If voters prefer divided government to unified government, then they split their votes in order to make divided government possible. If split-ticket voting is a phenomenon instead of a mean, then divided government is just the result of that voters prefer different parties in elections held at the same time. If each political party has one position in the policy space when two elections are held at the same time, then sincere and strategic voting can only provide partial explanations for split-ticket voting. If political parties should have, and in fact they do, two positions in two elections, it is spatial theory that can explain the relationship between split-ticket voting and divided government. The reason for split-ticket voting is that voters do not prefer the same party in different elections. Therefore, divided government is just a phenomenon and has nothing to do with the idea of checks and balances.