“Each State would send two delegates, chosen by the State, not by a popular vote, unless the State agreed to that.”
I don’t see a reason to trust the majority of the States to chose delegates who would work for a conclusion to such a convention that would be acceptable to most of the folks on this form.
Two delegates from each State is the proximate form for a constitutional convention. The Philadelphia convention had an average of 4-5 delegates from each State except Rhode Island, which sent none. A handful of these delegates refused to sign the final draft of the convention.
But today, with 50 States, the US Senate model, but without the sitting senators, would be the easiest to accomplish. The federal government would have no hand in the convention, as an accepted principle.
The most contentious issue would be how the States determined who their delegates would be. In some, they would be appointed by the governor. In some, by appointment of the State legislature. Other State legislatures would call a popular vote for delegates.
However, while theoretically these delegates are free agents, practically speaking, they would have to be instructed before they convened as to what their State demanded, and what their State would refuse to accept.
In convention, the delegates would almost have to be sequestered, because every villain on the planet, both foreign and domestic, would do anything to become involved in the process.
After a final draft of the constitutional changes had been made, it would then be returned to the individual States for an up or down vote, and this would require a 3/4ths majority of States to agree, or else the convention could not retire, unless it gave up and quit.
This would almost guarantee a conservative outcome. The sitting US government would be a caretaker after the new constitution was agreed to, and there would have to be a process for the changes made, which could last up to six years, the regular rotation of the US Senate.
Right now, the primary emphasis of a CC would be twofold. First to reduce federal power and increase State power, and second, to reset the national economy, likely by renouncing the national debt and eliminating direct federal intervention with the people. This is, to put the States back in between the federal government and the people.
All federal taxes would be limited to payments from the States, and import duties. All federal monies for individuals would go to the States, not to individuals, even federal pensions.
And those parts of the federal government not authorized by the constitution would be dissolved.