Many of the later amendments have expiration dates on them, declaring the amendment null if not ratified in 7 years. It's possible to insert these "poison pills" in liberal amendments and then let them die in ratification if they make it out of the convention.
Another thing I didn’t mention earlier is that when “conservatives” get together in conclave, they tend to break into groups. The political manipulators have used that tendency again and again to derail conservatives by splitting them.
The Delphi Technique might be useful at the local level to get citizens who attend public hearings to split their voice, but I doubt that it would work at a Convention. The delegates and leaders would not be allowed to resort to using these kinds of facilitation techniques. They would probably follow Roberts Rules of Order.
And if anyone can get the approval of 3/4 of the states, at the moment it’s probably the vote cheaters. The Democrats have massive cheating going on at the state and local level, and they would certainly pull out all the stops—with Eric Holder and the liberal judges approving their every move.
It's not clear that the ratification method would be popular voting. It would likely be by legislative vote.
-PJ
If you go back to Post #45, you'll see that Congress would decide whether the states would ratify by the state legislature method or the state ratifying convention method. It's the decision of Congress.
My guess? Amendments coming out of an Amendments Convention would be aimed at trimming the power of the federal government, which would go against the wishes of the Democratic and Republican wings of the Uniparty. To slow down or stop the ratification effort, I think Congress will specify state ratifying conventions. This way they can use scare tactics to get "no" votes from the people. State legislators would easily see through these techniques.