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.
Wouldn't state legislatures still have a say on the rules for the state ratifying conventions, if Congress chooses to go that route? Each state would choose its own rules for their own conventions, too, right, because these are state-managed events.
Would the federal government try to argue that "equal protection" allows them to insert themselves into the state processes to make each and every state hold their conventions in exactly the same way? Today, "equal protection" does not allow the federal government to intercede when some states hold primary caucuses and other states hold popular votes, so why would the federal government be allowed to dictate how a state holds its own ratifying convention?
-PJ