The Confederation of States appears to be a scheme for dissolving the Federal government without replacing it; my impression is that it's a souped-up "states' rights" movement. Inasmuch as a minority of states are interested in dissolving the union for reasons of racism, abortion, and guns, I doubt that it has any future.
Yes, parliamentary systems are common in Europe, but they're not limited to Europe. In fact, parliamentary systems are far and away the most common form of democratic government. The presidential system we use is shared by France and a few other countries.
I think that I have an answer to your point about a possible flaw. The red voters in New York wouldn't be able to combine their votes with those from red states, because the red states wouldn't be part of the IRA. The purpose of the IRA is to dispense with the unfair system imposed by the Senate and the Electoral College. This would put the rural vote on a properly democratic relationship with the urban vote.
Towards the end of the process, when the last red state holdouts cave in and join the IRA, they will indeed increase the share of red votes, but that's not intrinsically bad. After all, they'd be citizens, too, and they should be fairly represented. From current statistics, though, they would be a minority and so wouldn't be able to cram their interests down the throats of the majority.
"I am not seeing the EC or two senators per state rules as vastly undemocratic. These antiquated structures may give a slight edge to the Republicans these days..."
The majority of Americans voted for Ms. Clinton; Mr. Trump was awarded the Presidency. The result has been a catastrophe for America. You don't see this undemocratic and catastrophic result as a problem?