I can not agree with compulsory voting. Not voting should be counted as an abstention. I do support compulsory attendance at the voting booth with a non-vote considered an abstention: voters ought to be required to go and sign in, but not required to actually vote. I also support invalidating a vote where the level of abstentions is a majority.

Two year terms are required for the House: as the component of government ‘closest to the people’ the framers of the constitution made representation more accountable by frequent votes: representatives are neither delegates nor puppets and can (and should) excercise their own judgement. Should such judgment become so divorced from the will of the people (as from time to time it must) the frequency of the vote affords the electorate an opportunity to oust the Representative without delay.

Money and politics is a tricky issue. Some of our best Presidents starting with George Washington and including Teddy Roosevelt, his cousin FDR and JFK for example, were scion of the wealthy. Being wealthy, or taking money, isn’t (or shouldn’t be) an absolute bar: you can’t architect yourself away from corruption; people have the choice to be corrupt or not.

Preferential voting will forever remain problematic with single-seat elections: where one, and only one, candidate emerges victorious. Arrow’s theorem says that for a race with three or more candidates for only one seat, the will of the people can’t be definitively determined. That means that any and all such elections using preferential voting could be contested on the grounds of how the votes are tallied and distributed. If you want to use preferential voting you must embrace all the gory details of proportional representation and give up the single seat election: that means the possibility of multiple seats; If, for example, ten candidates compete for election and nobody gets a majority, the top pluralities get the seat: if, for example, three of the ten get 33% of the vote each, then the three of them ‘win’ the election and have to share power. This comes with a variety of other problems but it is closer — I think — to what you say you want.