Attribution complicates accountability. Presidents, Congress, the Federal Reserve, state governments, global events, and private markets all influence economic conditions. Voters may still use governing-party responsibility as a low-cost rule. Partisanship affects which indicators people notice and who receives credit, while campaigns contest the relevant time frame and benchmark. An association between growth and incumbent vote share supports economic voting but does not prove each voter consciously calculated an indicator.

Mobilization changes whether preferences become ballots. Campaigns, parties, unions, congregations, community groups, friends, and family provide information, reminders, registration help, transportation, social pressure, and a direct request. Personal contact can be effective because it reduces practical costs and adds accountability. Organizations target outreach toward likely supporters and persuadable or irregular voters, so contact is not randomly distributed.

Mobilization can alter the composition of the electorate without changing anyone's candidate preference. If one campaign turns out more supporters, its vote share rises through participation. Persuasion changes preferences among potential voters; mobilization activates existing support. Actual campaigns combine them, but evaluation requires different evidence. A turnout increase following contact is not proof that recipients changed ideology.

Political efficacy helps explain participation. Internal efficacy is confidence that one can understand politics and act effectively. External efficacy is belief that government institutions are responsive to people like oneself. A skilled organizer may have high internal but low external efficacy; a trusting citizen may believe government listens but feel personally unprepared to testify.

Efficacy and participation can reinforce one another. Confidence encourages action, while successful action teaches skills and demonstrates responsiveness. Repeated exclusion can reduce external efficacy, yet anger at unresponsive institutions can sometimes stimulate protest rather than withdrawal. Cross-sectional correlation cannot establish direction. Experiments, panels, or changes in institutional access provide stronger leverage. External efficacy is also institution-specific: a citizen may trust a responsive mayor while believing national government is remote, so one general survey item can conceal meaningful variation.

Economic judgment mainly explains vote choice; mobilization mainly explains whether and how supporters act; efficacy concerns perceived personal competence and institutional responsiveness. They can interact: a voter angered by economic performance still may not vote without registration and contact, while mobilization can build internal efficacy. When interpreting an election, separate the economic indicator, level of evaluation, direction in time, target of blame, and participation mechanism. Economic statistics describe conditions; they do not reveal who noticed them, whom voters credited, or whether the judgment changed turnout or vote choice. Those links require behavioral evidence.

Video lesson: How Voters Decide: Crash Course Government and Politics #38