I am not at all persuaded that Julius had any intention of "saving" what was left of the Republic, but that notion in any case became moot upon his death and the ascension of Octavius and his cronies.
Armstrong's piece lost its credibility with me initially with his characterisation of Cicero as a "flake". Talk about rewriting history, good grief!
After JC’s assassination, his heir Octavian did not immediately ascend to supreme power. The politico-military power struggle continued unabated for more than a dozen years, devastating Rome and many other areas of the empire.
Octavian was not initially considered a player in the game, but rather a pawn to be exploited by real players. He, of course, surprised everybody by being more competent, treacherous and cruel than his opponents.
I never claimed (that I recall, anyway) that JC wanted to “save the Republic.” He seems to have been as clear-sighted as his nephew and adopted son and probably realized the Republic was dead.
I suspect what he wanted to save was “Rome,” perhaps in much the way Augustus did, preserving many of the forms of the Republic while completely changing its basic nature.
As you say, we will of course never know what he had in mind. Personally, I believe he probably did want to become King. Possibly the way this ambition turned out for him acted as a salutary warning to Octavian to aspire to the substance of kingly power rather than the title.
Per the election, it is fair to point out that all sides cheated with great enthusiasm. The only real difference is that Caesar’s supporters cheated more effectively.