Yes. But nine of ten times that data (if you will) comes pre-filtered by The Media. Pardon me, but most of them don't seem qualified to make me coffee. Yet they are the ones most responsible for crafting public opinion.
Perhaps the messenger should be (metaphorically) shot?
I suspect that public opinion is less craft-able than has been previously thought, or at least that is what I think is the takeaway from the UK EU referendum and the last couple of general elections (GE2015 and GE2017 in the jargon).
What 'qualifications' do you see as appropriate for election to (say) Parliament?
Perhaps. But my point is, The Media is VERY biased. And that does affect attention and opinion.
Take for example all this talk of Russia hacking the USA election. How many articles have you seen that ask: Wait. This happened under the previous administration. Why weren't they prepared? Why did the intelligence community seemingly fail again? But instead we get "...and today Trump tweeted..."
Or what about Comey? This is the same guy who used his position and power to try to influence the election (by dredging up HRC emails, etc.) Yet that's forgotten and The Media speaks of him as completely trustworthy? Really? How's that?
I don't mean to bring up politics per se. But it does make it easier to point out for much (so called) journalism is barely grade-school level story telling.
It's embrassing. You can't have a true and honest Democracy without a healthy and proper Fourth Estate.
Willingness to compromise is the qualification no one seems to value anymore. Yet isn't that the key to effective politics, in any country?
Second would be background/experience. For example, in the USA, we tend to elect lawyers. Then a science issue comes up and we flip out because they aren't science aware / science literate.
Well...duh. What did we think we were going to get. The point is, it's silly to vote for a cat and then complain that it doesn't bark. Yet, that's what happens too often.
Perhaps the messenger should be (metaphorically) shot?