The idea that there will be a runaway convention that will drive the country into progressive hell is no longer relevant, WE ARE IN PROGRESSIVE HELL, and doing nothing would be folly.
It is a difficult question, but I'm not sure I agree with you. At least now, we can argue that the Progressive hell is unconstitutional and against the law. That may seem like cold comfort at this point, but as things continue to get worse, it is at least possible that Americans can be persuaded we are on the wrong path.
But at least we will have a guide to that path - namely our constitution.
But once that document is replaced by an abomination produced by a runaway convention, all bets will be off. Once the new constitution is in place, there will be no way back.
Vanbasten in #5 is correct, and I think that is why the balance has shifted from Phyllis Schafly’s “Can the Con-Con” hell no to Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments.
However, that does not mean we should ignore things that we can do to improve the process.
When there is a way right in front of us to lower the risk and improve the process, we should not be debating whether or not it is really needed.
“Good enough” usually falls short.