Well we all delegate things each day on matters past our immediate control horizon.
A well educated population (esp. politically educated and aware) can analyse the people they vote to power....and exert upon this process and selection.
A population not doing so (as perceived or realised in some way) is likewise not sufficiently well educated/aware (and this is most populations of the world, especially when the reach certain total sizes and contexts).
None of us know all the consequences of our actions, that's undisputable. What I meant by voting for someone to make the bigger choices, the ones that affect more people, was that I did not think it a viable way of delegating power to this authority. Because you as a voter gain a distorted picture, you get to know them virtually just through means where they control the flow of information.
The posters and adverts that they use come election season tells you only select details either about themselves or their policies, oftentimes overshadowed by the repeated usage of mindless/inflammatory/vague slogans. They're insinuating a few things alongside that, how you as the voter are responsible for the future of your country(true to a degree, but not by the magnitude that an elected government is responsible), how much better they or worse other parties and candidates are, why their leadership is required in these times, among other fearmongering that's more along the lines of race/religion/political beliefs.
It doesn't serve to inform you objectively, it's an advert, a byword for deception.
An educated and mindful populace going to the polls would not accept these practices, potentially wouldn't allow for those opinions to find any fertile ground at all. It's not in either the interest of the voters to waste their time and effort on figuring out if a party relying on these methods is viable, or in the interest of a political system to tolerate them. That's where you're correct, a hypothetical voter and voting population that can analyze their political choices and should be able to choose objectively.
But this ties in with what I previously said about the enormous amount of effort and cost it takes to achieve a high educational level permeating all layers of society...
This is why democracy should never be an absolute. It will eventually be majoritarian tyranny.
You need sufficient enlightened basic structure of the Republic that puts certain core rights of citizenry as sacrosanct.....not up for any vote or democratic process.
The better you are able to form this and keep it maintained and well executed (the checks and balances and branches of govts dealing with this basic law like the Courts)... the much less chance of tyranny usurping the setup and spreading like cancer.
The case of Weimar Germany's transition to Hitler's reich is a deep study all of its own. There are precise moments where the checks and balances caved in grievously....under a prolonged onslaught preceding it.
One SPD (yes the same SPD you see today)..... party bigwig (I think the whip or someone similar) for example was "coerced" after he offered resistance (to passing the enabling act)....and he caved in shamelessly...iirc getting just enough SPD people to stay absent from the voting.
That period is a dark study on many many more such moments that people do not really get into.... there was no popular vote pre-1933 that the Nazis won for example....they did not win the majority of seats either even in 1933 (not enough to pass the enabling act on their own....given it was such a clear affront to all other parties that should have rejected it prima facie if you read what it was).
There were several serious faults in the republic system that they exploited. A better republic has to be built to withstand these stress tests (at early stage) far more....because what it can cascade into once breached and ransacked was then plain to see.
Your absolute democracy/majoritarian tyranny point I fully agree with.
I'm writing up a few thoughts of mine on the judicial system and what is considered morally and ethically right, so I'll get to your stances on core rights and basic law encompassing all a bit later!
Regarding Hitler and the Nazis' rise to power, this topic is, as you said, a vastly bigger topic than can be handled with a few sentences written here.
One thing that you reminded me with the SPD though was a book by former german Chancellor Helmut Schmidt that I read a while back, where he and some of his friends had written up accounts of their childhood and youth under the NS regime.
The Book, literal translation is "Childhood and Youth under Hitler"
While most of the people weren't too politically conscious while growing up, one did get a feeling about how the common people viewed the situation, both before and under Hitler.
Many men, especially those that had served in the Imperial Army during WW1, were a decade later still bitter about the peace imposed by the allies and resented Germany's defeat. They weren't fond of the points made by the nazis, and likened Hitler and his entourage to jokers and clowns, but they did support a rearmament and renewing german military might. This of course only grew during the hardships of the economic crisis, and we can see the colloquialism "desperate times call for desperate measures" come to life.
The Weimar republic itself had it's political spheres controlled by the Reichswehr, Hindenburg was the President and his sidekick Ludendorff supported Hitler in his early years... this probably lingered in the minds of Germany, especially since those two were THE highest military commanders during the war and enjoyed widespread support during it.
Another thing that just came to mind was
a letter written by Einstein to Ehrenfest in 1919, which I see as a small piece of contemporary views not unimportant to our discussion here.