Why would Hegel mind that? He explicitly argues that representatives should be of specific groups - towns, professions, etc., size having nothing to do with it. He finds the idea of majority rule risible because in his view you can't get a rational result from it.

You can't get out of that by dismissing those ideas you dislike as a product of his time - all his ideas are of his era, and trying to graft an affection for democracy onto Hegel seems a bit strange - the whole state structure which he sees as the embodiment of political freedom simply collapses if you do so.

Liberalism is unable to articulate the notion of freedom I discussed in my original post by the way, no better than Islam can, because it rejects the concept of reason

No. That's just wrong. There's a very strong utilitarian aspect to liberalism. Unless you mean the idea that there are certain basic freedoms that should be treated as fundamental - e.g. freedom of conscience. But even those are often justified on rational grounds. The difference between a Hegelian vision and the liberal one lies in the attitude to the state - Hegel embodies it with a quasi divine status, liberalism doesn't and is focused on the individual. That can reach the exact same ends you like - a welfare state - without tossing away the rights of individuals.

Ironically, given where this discussion started, Hegel's support for liberal style freedom was at its strongest with respect to religion - his view on that was precisely the American one you reject, which is why he argued for rights for even those religions hostile to the state (Quakers) or largely outside the society of which the state is an emmanation (Jews). He's at his most illiberal when it comes to how to organize and run the state, not with respect to liberal freedoms. You on the other hand seem to be rejecting that, calling for secularism to be the religion of the state and imposed by the state on individuals.