Why prejudice such a question in order to bias the independent reader of my reply?
28 of the current 50 governors are Republicans. I didn’t bother to count the number of Republican-majority state legislatures there are. It is most likely that Republicans will pick up an even larger majority of state houses in the next election cycle. Any amendments must be ratified by a super-majority of the states.
Consider issues at the state level that could act as “proxies” for the rights that we all should hold precious. For example, notice how many states have objected ObamaCare by refusing to set up a state exchange. More to the point, consider how many states in recent years have expanded the rights to carry a concealed firearm. Notice what happened on Colorado when that state rammed through a restriction on firearms, the number of people who signed the recall petitions were greater than the number of votes the recalled state Senators had received in the general election.
Then there are state actions to outright nullification of federal firearms laws and NSA spying.
None of this is “in hiding”. It is in the news quite frequently. Moreover, in any ratification vote, each state gets one vote irrespective of the number of Electoral Votes it has. So, while Kalifornia is solidly liberal and has a lot of Electoral Votes, it cannot outvote Wyoming or Montana. All of this works to giving weight in any ratification vote to the conservative side.
Lastly, any ratification will be a few election cycles in the future, most liberal states in the northeast are losing population and thus as a result of the next census will lose more seats in the House of Representatives to the advantage of states like Texas.
On my part, and touching on your concerns, if the only Amendment that was proposed was to sharply limit federal spending by limiting governments ability to create near-infinite money and debt out of thin air, we would go a long way towards protecting our panoply of rights. Near-infinite money buys near-government and near-infinite bureaucracy. Cut the money and government must of necessity shrink too.
You obviously lack a clear understanding of an Article V convention.
It cannot be limited to one amendment, and once opened would be permanently open according to most competent constitutional scholars. (There is no clear process to adjourn such a convention)