All of us who've been on the losing side of an election (all of us) have bitched about the stupidity of the majority in making the wrong decision, but that soon passes. There does linger in many partisans an attitude that the other side must have really have its head where the sun don't shine, but I don't believe you can localize it to one party or the other. It goes with the partisan territory.
You have indeed conceded that there's no practical way to implement a filter for electoral competence, because whoever designs the filter essentially gets to design the electorate. Pretty good argument for near-universal suffrage--start on the assumption that everybody gets the vote, then rely on concrete negative markers like criminal activity or legal incompetency as grounds to take away the vote from individuals.
I think that even though you concluded that an electoral filter is impractical, you also confirm my observation about a bit of skepticism towards democracy among conservatives.
I'm not saying that Conservatives are completely against democracy, just that Conservatives are marked by a distinctive skepticism toward it, reflecting a split that goes right back to the Founders. "Anybody with a brain fears unrestricted democracy" sounds like a statement that one of the conservative Founders might have made, ranting about "mobocracy" and "mob rule"; while other Founders like Jefferson were considerably less fearful toward democracy and embraced it. They all agreed that a pure democracy wouldn't work, and built a republic instead; but then as now there's a historic ideological divide between those who fear democracy and those who just accept that "it's the worst form of government, except for all the rest".
I'm with Jefferson, you're with Hamilton. We're in distinguished company.
As far as those diagrams go, I suspect
And well you should. I confess I hacked the image URLs to place the dots where I wanted them, to illustrate some concepts. I did try to game the test to produce the results, but it is (as you say) too simplistic a test, and I couldn't find a good algorithm to reliably place the dots.
Which got me to thinking about better measures of political attitude. I think the questions about personal values don't go quite deep enough. The thing we should be measuring, somehow, is the relationship of the three primary "entities" in society--individuals, government, and business--and particularly their relative power.
(I debated whether to delete the material from here on out, because I'm rambling and making up a 3D political landscape as I go, and it has flaws; but I decided to leave it in and leave it up to you whether to slog through it. If you don't, no hard feelings.)
Of course, societal space has more than three dimensions, and like modern realspace there are dimensions which may or may not be meaningful, like religion--unless a society is in theocracy-space, that dimension can be discarded from many plots to simplify the math.
In this 3D space, you might achieve meaningful results, like plotting the Nazis where government and business are so powerful they converge, and individuals get zilch; and Libertarians at another extreme (but not endpoint), where individuals and businesses have almost all the power and a vestigial government very little; Anarchists further in that direction, where government reduces to zero; Liberalism, where individuals and government have more power than business, but business retains considerable power; and (theoretical) Communism where all three axes converge--no wonder it didn't work, twisting that many axes distorts political space past the breaking point. Which suggests that one law of this political space is that no more than one parameter can be removed (combined or set to zero) before the system crashes. Stability is determined by the number of power centers rather than their nature or absolute value--something that the Founders probably grasped instinctitively in their tripartite designs.
I can almost picture Feynmann diagrams depicting political systems transitioning between states and energy levels in this space....Nazism crashed because government+business, individuals 0 = 1; and Communism crashed into Nazism because government+business+individual = 1 is unstable and fissioned into government+business, individuals 0--the State controlled the economy and individuals were powerless--which in its turn proved no more stable in the long term, and crashed yet again into brief Anarchy before drifting over in a more liberal democratic direction (still not there yet, though).
Anyway, at the end of the day, seems to me that it matters most where a person believes power should reside. All the other things, whether we have ID cards, economic security, retirement insurance and medical care, the chance to get filthy rich, all of it depends on who's calling the shots in society.