>”The potential for a “runaway convention” is quite real.”
I have heard that canard before many times and it is simply not true.
It’s not true because it takes 2/3s of ‘states’ to create an amendment for ratification. Note that it is ‘states’, not delegates and not population.
If you look at a map of our USA, you will see that conservatives easily control most of the states. To block any amendment requires only 17 states. To create any amendment for ratification requires only 34 states.
Conservatives are much much stronger at the state and county levels than at the federal level.
There is no real concern with a runaway convention that favors the left. There is plenty of concern for the left to see a runaway convention by conservatives.
A convention to propose amendments has never been held, and the Constitution does not spell out procedures.
So it is at the very least premature to get all definite about how it would work.
“The states” can presumably limit the scope of what such a convention can address, but what reason do any of us have for expecting “the states” to agree on specific language for such limitation. Does such agreement by the states have to be unanimous, simple majority, 2/3 or what? If 26 states want to address X at the convention, but 24 states want to deal with Y, on what basis do you decide between them?
I would expect any such attempt to deteriorate into a mass of lawsuits.