On the first point, a representative democratic republic really shouldn't be choosing its candidates by popular vote. A caucus system empowers parties to moderate & modulate the voices of their voters. As horrifically corrupt as Clinton, Inc. were in the 2016 election, in general it's a good thing for party insiders to seek a more electable candidate.
On the second point, it simply makes no sense at all for a 40-30-30 split to go to the fellow with 40% of the vote. Instant runoff voting or a similar method would be far preferable to the current way we count votes.
They were all establishment candidates who've historically played the game that's lead us to the discontent we face today. They never really cared about the people either. Trump at least talked the talk in ways from an economic perspective (in unfortunately misogynistic and racist terms...) But I still believed that maybe he actually gave a damn at some level about the working class and genuine creation of opportunity and happiness.
Now I'm thinking he just really wanted to win an election at any cost and has turned the executive branch into a complete swamp... I mean... if this was supposed to be a referendum on corporate hegemony and cronyism, what the hell are all these millionaires, billionaires, and family members doing in government?
For me, Russia and Cambridge Analytica are not scapegoats: they are other problems that need to be addressed which are not orthogonal to addressing the economic inequalities aggravated by the current system.