You are now presenting instances in which it seems that for "sanguine" you mean: "a beast".

Do not use the concept of "Italians" for that, because it would be improper factually. Italy (land of Pareto) is extremely composite, first of all, and in general you can easily find the most controlled people even among the most ignorant (probably owing to a very "integrated" societal configuration of the past). This in fact is a characteristic that is noted by visiting foreigners, in general noticing an extremely less violent environment (up to the label of "effeminate"). Note, numerically, that it is a country of moderate wine drinkers, among countries with much more marked habits towards consumption and substance type.

When I used 'sanguine' or 'warm blooded' I - of course - always assumed, "mentally lucid, reflective and controlled" at the same time. Because normal people are lively and with a functioning prefrontal all the times - the two things are not conflictual, they go together.

You have confirmed my statement «there is an issue on measurements and it is difficult to get a "complete" idea of a population on quantitative data only, because many fundamental qualities are not measured» - or, moreover, even when measurable and measured, it seems they are not easily apparent.

The topic though was "democracy deserving populations". Again: if the population is ignorant, they will be poor to disastrous in judgement: they will be unable to distinguish mice from eagles, they will take the first dog and call that dog "a leader that will lead us to years of cheers", they will believe things like "politicians should not receive a salary", they will believe that they have judgement where they do not have it. If the population is highly skilled - on average, median and typical -, democracy has more reasons to be a good idea. If the population is not, there surely is a problem to be fixed.

Hong Kong (e.g. top average IQ worldwide to some informal data, in absence of a "civilization index") projected an image of competence: if the image corresponds to facts, it would be a pity if representation is not extended. If a strong component of the population is competent, they should be empowered. And those who are "beasts", whatever the percentile they are in, majority or minority, and whatever the role they are in, appointed or marginalized, must be a social concern (of everyone, they themselves first) even outside the context of some "right for representation".