Did you advocate that at the beginning of the race, when there were 17 candidates running on the Republican side?
Probably not, so what's changed? Fewer candidates from which to choose?
Alright, but think of it this way -- you get a chance to choose from the strongest, most durable of the bunch. The rest were just clogging up the contest, and taking attention away from the real contenders anyway.
That's a better perspective, don't you think?
Thing is, these elections are very dynamic. They don't progress along the carefully laid out timetable of the national parties, so the field could well be whittled down to just two, by the time you have your opportunity to vote. That's just the way it is.
Think of all the other Americans who are looking back at the votes they already cast, and who are wishing they had your kind of opportunity. I guarantee you, a lot of them would vote differently, if they knew then, what they know now.
Wasn't advocating for no "dropouts" then...I still had 17 choices. ;-)
...so the field could well be whittled down to just two, by the time you have your opportunity to vote. That's just the way it is.
But I saw that you were advocating that I have NO choice by primary (see post #8)...a bit irritating to have NO choice of party candidate.