Isn't diffusion of power more-or-less the point of democracy?
As an extension of that, getting “power to the people” is usually the rallying cry of someone who wants to weaken the government enough to overpower it in some way.
I believe that it's possible, and preferable for everyone to have the same amount of power. A democracy where every citizen has equal power would try to do what's best for as many people as possible.
> The tyranny of the majority
Has that ever happened or is that just an argument to let politicians keep their power?
Yes? American history is full of situations like Jim Crow, redlining, anti lgbtq legislation, lack of support for people with disabilities, criminalization of people experiencing homelessness, etc.
If you'd like, I'm sure there are referendums and initiatives that are directly voted on that I could dig up. A quick search in my local area says WA initiative 192 was a case where the majority chose to deplete a shared resource (salmon) and failed to protect minority interests.
Does the Holocaust or Jim Crow count?
Americans never voted on segregation. So we'll never know how much sooner black Americans would've been welcomed into society if all Americans had equal power.
If diffusion of power isn't fundamentally worthwhile (and there's certainly a defensible position that it isn't) it seems the important question is whether Western liberal democracy is worth the trouble in the first place.