EDIT: Previously I concentrated too much on issues of education/IQ vs. views. I think that I (and other answers) missed the key point - what would happen with views if you give people issue specific knowledge.
EU run a trial of deliberative democracy, with providing people with extra info and give a chance to rethink. They achieve a moderate shift towards pro-green, tiny towards acceptance for migrants (unless they are Muslim, then no change in negative attitudes) and drastically much pro-EU views. (sure, there may be an issue concerning to what extend EU is perfectly objective while teaching about EU or its policies)
However there is also an opposite result observed, called pending on political views as "internet radicalisation" or "red pilling". It's somewhat interesting that even people who are worried about it like prof. Steven Pinker, admit that mentioned information are technically speaking correct, but often unknown as taboo subject, just the interpretation is too far reaching:
When they are exposed the first time to true statements that have never been voiced in college campuses or in The New York Times or in respectable media, that are almost like a bacillus to which they have no immunity
Previous post, with just education/IQ vs. views
As liftam pointed out, there is indeed electorate of let's call it simple right wingers with simple answers. (called in the article politely as: racist, homophobic, authoritarianism) With increase of IQ, those attitudes become less prevalent.
To make it a bit more complicated - for example in the US Democrats are overwhelming successful 90:9 in getting votes from Blacks. Let's say that according to SAT score it would be a bit tricky to consider them as the most educated electorate. Just a minority issue? Well, among Asians who outperform Whites Democrats get nice result of 77:23, so better educated minority was not actually reducing the edge.
Right wing tends to earn votes of the group that scores the highest - classical liberals. With increasing IQ there is an increase of support towards personal and economical freedom. Especially in era of political correctness this group reluctantly pick right wing.
Interesting paradox from the US, relation between freedom of speech vs. PC. When electorate of those parties are better educated... then their views diverge even more.
OK, anecdotal evidence - it seems that ideologies seem change within with increased education. For example, among higher educated right wingers instead of denying anthropogenic global warming, it's considered as real issue, which was blown up out of any proportions by activists and hype seeking media. Among higher educated left winger, however nuclear power plants are no longer source all evil, but a reliable and potentially cost effective way of reducing carbon emission. So paradoxically, in this case a common ground starts to appear.
For extra perspective:
Its easier to express libertarian leaning ideas when one is self reliable, educated and earns well. In such situation indeed government looks like an obstacle and individual just needs to be left alone and would flourish.
There are some arguments that there is growing ideological bias in higher education, when there are more self identified Marxists than Republicans among professors. It's not only self selection as there are studies showing, that in big part of faculty is even openly admitting willingness to discriminate against right wing academics.
While education is being used as proxy of being smart, there is a serious problem when using it to compare different generations. It used to work, but while each subsequent generation is in theory much better educated, but in last two decades Flynn effect started to reverse.