I’m quite certain that would have to be item number one on the list. Without state representation in the Senate we will continue with the status-quo.
In reality the seventeenth should be thrown out for their not changing the length of service from six years to two reflecting the term of the peoples representative compared to those representing the states. That alone should nullify the amendment. Not to mention turning the Founders vision on it’s head. Once the states were no longer represented, it was Katy bar the door. The government against the people, a clear example of no win. It was the people through the states that gave the federal government the right and power to exist, and when the states gave up it was all over.
Following the restoration of state representation in the Senate which is definitely a bridge to far in today’s world, then comes the request for an article V convention, which would be the final nail in the Republican form of government coffin IMHO. If no one is paying any attention to the Constitution now, you can bet your last dollar those in power will be paying attention when they are given carte blanche with an Article V convention where they rule the show. Extremely dangerous move IMHO unless you are holding a royal flush, and 20 divisions of crack troops. And even then...
Where I disagree, as I touched on in my post, I think repeal of the 17th is doable. It is certainly necessary.
I also understand your concern regarding a runaway convention. Another thread today expressed the same fear.
First, as Mark explained, a state initiated convention would be limited as Congress is, to amendments.
Secondly, whatever amendments emerged would be subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states.
But let's say you are correct as to an open, carte blanche convention. Another poster today thought the constitutional convention of 1787 was illegal because it went outside the Articles of Confederation. We are comparing similar situations, yes?
Well, if that is the fear, the states could be prepared for it as they were in 1787. Back then, delegates from NJ and IIRC, DE were limited BY STATE LAW from considering any change that denied equality of state suffrage in Congress. That is the reason each state has an equal number of senators.
My point is, for instance, my state of Florida in a future convention could limit our delegates to decide on a limited number of specific amendments and how to vote on them.