On the surface, it seems reasonable (if not ideal) to govern through the expertise, reputation, and credibility of individuals and this is what delegation aims to leverage. However, due to unequal access to quality education, resources, and associate networks; there is a gross disadvantage that underpins a 'Meritocracy' -- primarily these are socioeconomic factors that impact access and opportunity over accumulated generations. Still, this is more of an ethical matter which none-the-less can still yield efficient and effective governance; albeit room for improvement.
In practical application, not always will the 'wisdom of the crowd' lead to the best outcome, regardless of popularity; this is especially true for proposals that are technical, complex and highly sensitive. In this regard, nuance considerations are generally overlooked or incomprehensible to the layman. The ideal approach is to lean into the relevant expertise, credibility and reputation of delegates. In this way, consensus typically follows in hindsight -- as any conceptual understanding will always be limited.
The traditional beliefs held around plutocracies, don't really apply within the context of on-chain delegation. The reason being is unlike traditional election cycles and governments; a delegate's power may also be revoked at any time. This introduces additional and ongoing accountability on a proposal-by-proposal basis. In a way, an on-chain delegation is a form of representative democracy that has a much more responsive adjustment to individual preference. Even so, delegation still remains a more or less passive involvement for most; one where consensus is generally only evaluated in hindsight.