The Founders had the right idea: don't allow one part of the government to have exclusive power to either propose or ratify amendments. And make sure that We the People have substantial input to the amendment process. Unfortunately, in practice, the system has not lived up to their ideals.
The Founders' Plan
The Founders wisely created multiple pathways to amend the Constitution. The main pathway was that Congress would propose amendments and the state legislatures would ratify them, but there were other routes.
In case Congress was obstructing reform, the Founders allowed the state legislatures to force Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments.
In case the state legislatures were obstructing reform, the Founders allowed for ratification by state conventions, with a role for the People in choosing delegates.
Unfortunately It Hasn't Worked In Practice
The state legislatures have never succeeded in forcing Congress to call a convention -- not once, in over two centuries. And only once, in the early 1930s, have we had state ratifying conventions.
The result is that Congress has an effective monopoly on proposals and the state legislatures have an effective monopoly on ratification. Instead of multiple pathways, we have one. Instead of substantial input from the People, we have a top-down process with Congress in firm control.
This is not what the Founders wanted, and it's not good for our politics.
A Needed Update
Besides Congress proposing amendments, the state legislatures should also be able to propose amendments, when a supermajority of them agree on an identical proposal. This would bring the process closer to the People, since the 7,386 state legislators are more representative of our vast and diverse citizenry than the 535 national legislators.
Besides ratification by legislatures, there should also be an option for the People to directly vote on a proposed amendment. A successful vote would require a supermajority of the nation's voters, plus a majority of the voters in a supermajority of the states. This would ensure broad popular and geographic support.
These changes would break the monopolies that stifle reform, bring the amendment process closer to the People, and breathe new life into the Founders' design.