The results of last Tuesday’s elections are in: The Republicans won control of the House but the Democrats managed to hold on to the Senate.

This shift in control of half of the legislative branch comes with mixed messages. Does it mean that Congress will come to a screeching halt? Will President Barack Obama’s legacy be marred by the fact that his party couldn’t maintain control of the House? Will the president’s agenda be tossed aside and replaced with another two years of partisan gridlock?

For anybody with an interest in American politics, these questions are often answered with a strong dose of personal partisan ideology and emotion. But there’s a more objective stance that can be taken on the subject.

Typically in a midterm election, the sitting president’s party loses seats in Congress. It’s a trend that has been shown true for decades with very few exceptions. So why then is it a surprise that the Republicans now have the majority in the House of Representatives?

During a midterm election, voter turnout is exceedingly low. Only about a third of those eligible show up to vote. Of those who do vote, a great number are quite often aligned with the minority party, and they vote against the current administration. Those affiliated with the majority party generally don’t bother showing up because they’re content and don’t see going out to vote to be worth their while. So then why do we hear so much complaining when power changes hands?

Concerns about Washington’s productivity ‘ now that the House of Representatives is run by a different party than both the Senate and the president ‘ are not without merit. Surely there will be more conflict within and between all bodies, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It could lead to less radical legislation being enacted, a result of compromise necessary for bills to pass, which may be more representative of the American people’s views.

Congress always seems to be caught up in some sort of gridlock. Many viewed this past Congress to be unproductive, but I disagree. Looking back, it’s been one of the most productive in recent history. Landmark health care legislation, financial regulation and a multi-billion dollar stimulus package have all been enacted in the past two years.

Any remarks about President Obama’s legacy being tarnished by his party’s failure to maintain control of Congress can quickly be cast aside ‘ as I’ve said, presidents often have a tough go of it in their first midterm. The real issue is that his agenda may be put aside in the name of petty politics.

Certainly the success of a president’s agenda depends, at least in part, on the compliance of Congress. But there are other means through which change can be accomplished. Executive orders are just one example of how the president can affect public policy without having to get into it with our elected representatives.

But in lawmaking, there’s a crucial element that often goes overlooked: timing. The next election cycle is just around the corner, and that means campaigning will be top priority for all, especially the president. Fundraising will become more and more prevalent over the course of the next year, leaving little time for actual governing. So it’s quite possible that Republican control of the House of Representatives will have little to no effect on public policy whatsoever ‘ there may not be any substantive policy up for debate.

Whatever happens over the next two years, it’s important to remember that the makeup of our Congress, especially the House, changes frequently. House members are up for re-election every two years, so all the gains made by the Republican party this cycle could be negated in only 24 months.

All we can do is wait and see.