Voters often associate good or bad welfare conditions to the competence of a candidate; however, a multitude of external factors influences economics and welfare. These factors may include a world economic crisis that affects the national economy or a rise in the price of commodities that brings more revenue to the country. Voters may not always understand the intricacies of policies adopted by a candidate because of these external factors. A lack of understanding about policy issues may cause voters to punish a candidate by voting her out.
There are two ways in which retrospective voting takes place. The first is through simple retrospective evaluation of things that a voter experiences including war -- whether witnessing it on TV or watching a loved one deploy to serve her country -- and personal finance. The other is through mediation by an entity like the news media, which helps voters to make decisions about a candidate by disseminating information. The intermediary may be prone to bias against a certain candidate and may therefore not disseminate correct or clear information about this candidate. Misinformation about one candidate can cause him to lose the election to a candidate who is more preferable to the intermediary.
Many voters focus on both policy and an individual's performance during an election; however, not all voters vote based on an understanding of policies. Issues of race, religion, the incumbent's performance and the candidate's political party affiliation may influence the voter's evaluation of the candidate. For example, a candidate who wants to succeed an incumbent in the same political party as him may be evaluated prematurely even if his opinion on a certain issue is different from the incumbent.
Due to the focus on past performance, voters risk short-lived results brought about by a candidate just before the elections. For example, just before voting begins, a candidate can visit a school of disadvantaged children and promise to present a bill to the state legislature about increasing funding to that school. Voters may vote for her due to this immediate past performance even though they are not sure that the candidate will actually campaign to increase funding for the school when she is in office.