You are right -- good eye! I will correct this immediately...

-CW

Simply holding a constitutional convention does not imply anything in The Constitution is going to be amended. The bar of ratification is set at 75%. Holding a convention would guarantee conversation,, some civil, but I would expect shouting as well, with reasonable prospects of negotiation after everybody is shouted out....very likely in subsequent constitutional conventions.

There is politics and there is meta politics, the latter being the politics of politics which is to say the politics of amending the Constitution as required. The Congress is not very good at metapolitics- probably because congress folk are politicians subject to short-term pressures. Executive and Judicial branches have no role.

The Constitution is a tool, subject to upkeep and redesign. If we fail to grasp this, we run the risk of becoming The Ottoman Empire or Austria Hungary...which is to say dismembered.

I'm really not sure a constitutional convention every decade would be a good idea. The constitution was made hard to be amended on purpose for a reason. We do have the oldest surviving constitution in the Democratic World after all. While you might get a lot of things you like, if you made it easier to amend, such as an Equal Rights amendment, for instance, you might also get a LOT of other things you don't like: restrictions on abortion, repealing same sex marriage, allowing school prayer, restrictions on free speech, more entanglement with a particular religious viewpoint, etc. Do we really want to fill the constitution with a long list of experimental proposals that get adopted and repealed over and over again like our experiment with Prohibition in the 1930's? Politically we are already in a tit for tat game where Trump is undoing everything Obama did and the Democrats will obviously undo everything Trump has done as soon as they get the chance. Do we really want the constitution to end up the same way?

I'm for the NPV, but it's a workaround. What the US really needs is a Constitutional Convention. Every decade or so. I not sure this is possible...we may have reached a Constitutional a Schwarfeld Radius where new laws and territory flow in, but nothing can ever escape.

In paragraph 2:

So if one state voted narrowly for Candidate A, but Candidate B won nationwide, then all of that state's electors would be bound by law to cast their vote for Candidate A instead.

I think you mean "...bound by law to cast their vote for Candidate B instead".