But I am not a believer that the person with the most delegates should automatically win. When you have a large field, that can actually distort the will of the voters. I am NOT saying this to make any kind of comparison between the candidates, but a certain eccentric German politician was elected Chancellor in German even though his party never got more than 37% in any election. He was unpopular with the majority of Germans, but they simply couldn't unite politically to stop him.
If there is a candidate who is very popular with a plurality, but very unpopular with a majority whose first preferences may be divided among other candidates, a "second choice" candidate among all those other candidates may in fact be the option that most reflects the will of the voters. That's theory, obviously, and I'm not saying that is true here (very open question as to whether a majority of GOP voters actually prefers Cruz to Trump in direct matchup). I'm simply pointing out why the rule isn't "plurality wins".
This election is completely screwed up because the membership of the party itself is so incredibly divided, the two leading candidates are both very unpopular with a substantial portion of the party, and there is no "second choice" guy who is acceptable to everyone.
So you concede then move on to a completely different topic? C'mon, people have better things to do than to get led down rabbit holes by a Cruz propagandist.