This is a misrepresentation of what happened. They first tried a coup in 1920. When that failed they tried gathering votes.
They won a plurality, not a majority. After that this guy is responsible for the transformation into a dictatorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg
> In 1925, Hindenburg returned to public life to become the second elected President of the German Weimar Republic. Despite being personally opposed to Hitler and his Nazi party, he was nonetheless a major player in the political instability that resulted in their rise to power. Upon twice dissolving the Reichstag in 1932, Hindenburg ultimately agreed to appoint Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933 when the Nazis won a plurality in the November elections. In response to the Reichstag Fire allegedly committed by a communist arsonist, he approved the Reichstag Fire Decree in February 1933 which suspended various civil liberties. Later in March, he signed the Enabling Act of 1933 which gave Hitler's regime emergency powers. After Hindenburg died the following year, Hitler combined the Presidency with his office as Chancellor before proceeding to declare himself Führer und Reichskanzler des deutschen Volkes (i.e. "Leader and Reich Chancellor of the German People") and transform Germany into a totalitarian state.
You speak of this as if it's not a legitimate electoral structure in place in many countries today, especially America. When OP says they voted fascists into power it carries the same weight whether it was by majority or plurality, in the former case it means most people 'wanted' it, in the latter it means enough people were okay with letting it happen.
This is a misrepresentation of what happened too. The democratically-elected Nazis formed a coalition government with the democratically-elected German National People's Party (DNVP); it was this coalition government which was approved by the democratically-elected Hindenberg. The Enabling Act was also first passed by the democratically-elected Reichstag.
So yes, Hindenberg failed to fulfill his role as the "check and balance" against the rise of someone like Hitler; but it's not like what he was doing was strange or unusual.
I think you're both giving too little credit to the original fascists, and to much credit to the people falling for it a second time. Fascism was plenty good at deception and bending of truths the first time around, and at this point in the second go around, they've stopped being subtle about it.
Remember that a) plenty of people supported the Nazis, and that Hitler's party was voted into power, and
b) people on the left have been pointing out the proto-fascist rhetoric since Trump's first campaign, and moderate liberals are all acting surprised that the neo-fascists are suggesting fascist things (like subverting a democratic election with military force)