I seriously cannot understand why we use the antiquated system of delegates and electoral college.
We have the technology, we can rebuild it. . .

Well, this is a party primary, so it's up to them. As for the electoral college, it started by necessity and continues by inertia. When it was set up it wasn't possible for candidates to cover the whole country in a single campaign, ditto for getting all the vote tallies collected in a reasonable timeframe. The best that could be done was for people to get together, pick someone they trusted to vote they way they'd vote if they could actually hear the candidates' views and decide for themselves, and send that one person to a central spot where they could grill the candidates. That's also why the delay between the popular election and the inauguration: to allow time for the electors to travel. With modern travel and communications the reasons for the electoral college are long gone, but nobody's managed to get up enough energy and support to change the Constitution. I figure it won't change unless and until the electoral college goes and elects someone who didn't win either the popular or the electoral vote.

"I figure it won't change unless and until the electoral college goes and elects someone who didn't win either the popular or the electoral vote."

didn't we have that with Gore? I believe he won the popular vote.

Arguably, depending on which set of Florida numbers you accept. But he lost the electoral vote. It's going to take general outrage on both sides to get enough momentum to change the Constitution, though, and that's going to take the election of someone who either lost both the popular and elector-count votes (which would involve several electors switching sides), or who lost the popular vote by a huge (10% or more) margin.