I used to be opposed to a Concon due to the threat of corruption by communists who would use it to implement some vile oppression of liberty,
but, I have since learned that before the Concon is voted on to convene, a specific agenda is laid out, limiting the scope to very specific items to be voted on - and each state has but one vote, removing the possibility of some high population liberal state overwhelming the others.
Yep, that’s one beauty of it... one state one vote.
I don’t call it con-con... that sounds negative and its not what it is... it is a convention of states or amendments convention. The one being promulgated at this time proposes to: “impose fiscal restraints... limit the power and
jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit terms of office...”. Each state application must state that more or less so that they get counted together as one “call”.
There has been exactly one “concon” Constitutional Convention, I wouldn’t expect another one, as it is unconstitutional to completely rip up the existing one and replace it entirely. Not that it couldn’t happen, but that would be after a protracted period of despotism, and then CW-III.