I'm telling you that ultimately it comes down to who votes. And when propaganda is overwhelmingly in the hands of the libs, such a convention would spin out of control so fast you'd beg for a do-over.
And by the way, I like Madison and think the Constitution was the right call. But come on: he clearly did not like the Articles and was a good propagandists and of course he would say in the Federalist it was not a "runaway convention."
I'm horrified at the sheer misinformation of your posts on this thread. I would think that the co-author of A Patriot's History would know what he is talking about. But it appears you haven't looked into Article V, parsed its words, or looked at the history of Supreme Court decisions laying out case law on the topic.
As a serious historian, you need to do some research, with or without Mike Allen, and look at what is involved. An Amendments Convention is not the out-of-control runaway convention you fear. It is simply the means by which the states may bypass Congress to propose amendments. As far as ratification is concerned, we have law and precedent to go by. There is no room for creative interpretation here.