Here is my summary of your six points:

1. Australia has compulsory voting. It is not a nation that is heads and shoulder above other western democracies.

2. I agree with preferential voting. However, it does complicate the ballot and more than a few voters will need several elections to understand it. Some never will. In 2010, the UK had a referendum on a preferential ballot, and the citizens rejected it.

3. The length of the terms will do nothing to solve the limitations of western democracy. There are pros and cons for going shorter or longer.

4. Yes, we need to get the money out of politics. The best solution so far is the Nordic countries, where government funds much of the parties. But parties have to prove a certain level of popular support, which then leads for new parties finding it difficult to establish themselves. And big money always finds a way to get more influence than it deserves. There is no solution here as long as political parties to run election campaigns.

5. You might be interested in this essay from a rather innovative supporter of direct democracy. http://davevolek.org/articles/DynamicRecovery.html

6. Again, having same sized electoral jurisdictions is nice, but it won’t solve the problems of democracy. It is interesting that you mention Nunavut. The MP from this Canadian constituency has a lot of travelling to meet his/her voters. But MPs from urban centers have much easier access. So there is an argument for large rural constituencies to have fewer voters. BTW, I advocate for electoral districts to be around 200.