Republican Nominee

My question is, what makes someone the Republican Nominee.

The assumption is that there is a legitimate process that is followed, which means something to the general election voters. People who want to be branded Republican Nominee, follow certain procedures. There is a winner, and general election voters can weigh this victory into their decision of who to vote for.

Mitt Romney can not possibly be the Republican Nominee. It is impossible. This would be like saying someone who ran 50m of a 100m race in less than 9 seconds holds the world record for the 100m. If we say that, then it no longer has meaning. If we call someone the Republican Nominee after they cheated, then the term loses its meaning.

There are people claiming Romney is the nominee. Baseless. Fraudulent. This claim does not make it so.

As in a physical race, I would not spend one second arguing why the person who ran half the race was not the winner. I would carry on, calling the person who did win the race, by the rules, the winner.

Why do we give credit to the supposed RNC? Why don't we, following our rules, hold a convention and elect Ron Paul the nominee. Hold it on our property, and invite all the duly elected delegates. And when the Romney delegates fail to show up, we win. This tactic was used at the state level when we had the majority and certain chairmen refused to follow the rules.

The real judge, is not the RNC. The real judges, are the American voters. When we call Ron Paul the Republican Nominee, and someone else calls Mitt Romney the nominee, who will they vote for.

Thoughts?