I think there are three basic positions that one could take on Article V:
1. It should not be reformed because it has worked well enough.
2. It should be reformed because it violates equality over the law and/or because it is too hard to amend the Constitution, but we should amend or repeal it according to the procedures of Article V.
3. It should be reformed because it violates equality over the law, and we should amend it according to the principles of equality over the law.
Suppose that there is a national debate about the representational design of the Senate and Article V. The #2 people are not going to have any success because it does not make any logical sense to declare that Article V is so bad that it must be amended or repealed, while declaring that Article V is good enough to be used to amend Article V. Plus, the numbers just don’t work out for #2.
Soon after debate starts, #1 v. #3 will be the only game in town.