You know the spin today, tomorrow, next week (bring on West Virginia!) will be about how she's a fighter who never gives up (bring on Kentucky!).

So, despite Barack Obama's big North Carolina win and much better-than-expected showing in Indiana, you know there's more to come. Makes me crazy.

Luckily, I found a way to settle this thing between Obama and Hillary Clinton. Well, OK, actually I found a guy at MIT who has a way to settle it.

Alex Belenky is a visiting scholar at MIT and author of several books on presidential elections (including "Winning the U.S. Presidency: The Rules of the Game and Playing by the Rules").

He and I last chatted four years ago, when I promoted his plan to make the Electoral College a backup to the popular vote, using it only if less than 50 percent of the electorate votes in a general presidential election.

I mean, you know, stress the voice of the people.

It's an idea I like. And so is his new one, for the same reason.

He offers a three-level deal to decide on Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

It treats all states the same, sensibly rejecting the notion that states with large numbers of electoral votes should be weighed differently.

It rejects that notion because only a small percentage of the total eligible voters in each such state (which includes, of course, independents and, in open primaries, Republicans) cast ballots.

Also, some of that vote, however small, might have been strategic, which is to say conservative Republicans and/or misogynists voting for Clinton, believing that she'd be a weaker candidate in the fall. Also, who knows who votes how come fall?

So, Belenky says, rely on a system in which "the voice of the people is the decisive factor."

You noting a theme here?

Level one: Whoever wins the popular vote AND a majority of primaries and caucuses is the nominee, regardless of the pledged delegate total.

In a normal year that means winning 28 of the 55 states, territories and District of Columbia sending delegates to the convention. This year it will be 27 of 53, assuming Florida and Michigan - banned for holding their primaries too early - stay out of the mix.

I like this. What's fairer than giving the nod to the person with the broadest overall support?

But if neither candidate wins under this combination of most states and popular vote, we drop to the next level.

Level two: The candidate with the most pledged delegates wins.

Belenky reasons that pledged delegates, elected by voters, better reflect the voice of the people than party-picked superdelegates.

This favors Obama unless there is an agreement that allows for some pledged delegates from Michigan and Florida.

And Belenky thinks that it's possible that the party could seat the 366 Michigan and Florida delegates by, say, splitting them up, giving Clinton maybe 10 more delegates than Obama in Michigan and maybe 20 to 30 more than Obama in Florida.

In which case, a pledged delegate tie becomes possible.

If that happens we go to the last option.

Level three: Allow all seated delegates in Denver to name the nominee. This could mean a brokered convention, fistfights in the aisles, riots in the streets, all sorts of shenanigans - which is why it's the last option.

But the first option, combining states and the popular vote, strikes me as fair and reasonable, which probably makes it unappealing to Democratic Party leaders. Still, the fix that they're in presents an opportunity to show some leadership, at least more than they've shown in Congress.

I, for one, hope they seize it.*

Send e-mail to baerj@phillynews.com.

For recent columns, go to

http://go.philly.com/baer