“The current structure is a federalist republican system with very limited representation for a very limited part of the population.”
That’s not true. The current structure is a federalist republican system with full representation for almost everybody. There are plenty of kinks, such as the unfairness of the advantages that small states have over big states, and gerrymandering, but these are second-order problems, not first-order problems.
“Congress was owned by the parties (only two were functionally allowed by precedent) while the Senate was effectively a house of lords able to ignore the people while guaranteeing the well being of the wealthy.”
There are several flaws in this sentence. First, the authors of the Constitution did not plan for a two-party system. They expected a multitude of parties. They did not understand how the dynamics of power forced the system towards a two-party arrangement. Most parliamentary systems devolve down to two-party arrangements, but they enable third parties to acquire sufficient power to profoundly affect the government. Our system does not do this.
The “house of lords” line is just plain wrong, as there are no lords in this country. There are plenty of people with lots of power, but few of them gain this power through hereditary lines. Your phrase is appropriate only as a metaphor. Moreover, most parliamentary systems have an upper house as well.
The Senate certainly does not ignore the people; observe how terrified of being ‘primaried’ the Republicans in the Senate have become. And the Senate’s relationship with the wealthy has varied over the decades. The Citizens United case gave the wealthy much more power, but Senates controlled by the Democrats have been less obeisant towards the wealthy.
The final three paragraphs of your statement are too looney to require comment.