As far as "which house system to use?"....
As you can see from the responses to the question, there are about as many answers as there are astrologers. I agree with Alice that an astrologer's choice of house system may be influenced, at least in part by the personality, nature or philosophical outlook on life of the astrologer. I have noticed the same sort of thing in astrologers making a choice between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs...the perspective on life has a lot to do with which zodiac is chosen. But putting that aside...
The only really valid criterion for choosing one system, method or technique over another is results. What works? What gives me, the astrologer, the most and the most useful and consistently dependable information? The beginning student hasn't the knowledge or experience on which to base a choice. A house system must simply be adopted, based on what someone else says, on faith.
It is quite possible to use a chart with no houses whatsoever. Only the horizon and meridian divide the chart, into quadrants. A refinement of this approach is to use the midpoints of the quadrants as sensitive points, thus dividing the sky into 8 sectors, equivalent to houses in the broad sense. Very few astrologers use this system.
If the astrologer opts to use a house system, as most of us do, then there are two broad categories to choose from: sign-based houses, or quadrant houses. I noticed that Cassandra says "I am convinced to whole house [sic] method." I would caution beginning students not to be convinced. You have neither the basic mastery of fundamentals in hand, nor the experience to be convinced. Rather, I would select one of the two basic ways of dividing houses (sign or quadrant) as a starting point for my study of astrology. I would adopt a mind-set that is experimentative. I would use the chosen system for as long as it takes for me to reach a level of interpretive/predictive skill beyond the beginner stage, and then begin to experiment with other systems so that I could learn for myself which system seems to give the best results. And results should be our criterion for choice, whether of house system or any other astrological methods and techniques.
A curious thing about astrology is how it adapts itself to the practitioner, how it fits the mind of the artist. This has its roots in the way the human mind functions. The gift of sight is a marvelous thing. We look out at reality, the world, through our eyes. But it is not our eyes that do the seeing. That takes place in the brain, and ultimately in the mind. And what we end up seeing is not reality itself, but a representation of reality. What we think we see is actually only a symbolic representation of what actually is. If we think deeply about astrology and its origins, what we find is that man has taken the apparent reality (his geocentric perspective) of the heavens -- based on observations and measurements -- and out of them created a vast system of thought that mirrors that reality, that approximates it. But in the end, astrology is a system of thought created by man's mind in its own image. Like sight, it takes place in the mind. That is why astrology adapts itself so handily to each individual's mind. Applied astrology is wholly symbolic. This means that you can choose the house system that best suits your personal tendencies, and as long as your methodology is consistent and disciplined, it will work for you.
What about house meanings (contents)? Western and Vedic astrology, while largely in agreement on what each house contains, do have some striking differences. For example, in traditional Western astrology, the father is assigned to the 4th house, the mother to the 10th. But in Vedic astrology the mother is found in the 4th, and the father in the 9th. Once again, the beginning student is compelled to choose a system without benefit of knowledge or experience. We must rely on tradition and from that foundation eventually build our own structure.
So, pick a system as a starting point. Use it with confidence. Have fun.
Now then. I use Placidus. One thing I like about quadrant systems is that they "distort" the division of the heavens and produce intercepted signs at higher latitudes, and unequal houses generally. I find intercepted signs very illuminating, although very little has been written about their interpretation. A second benefit of quadrant houses is that they provide an additional perspective. Whole sign houses are entirely ecliptical. Quadrant houses add the equator into the mix. That said, I could use whole sign houses with confidence and peace of mind.
Also, regarding the passage of Uranus over cusps. It is not the Ascendant and MC that should be observed. They are the same in any house system. The Ascendant and Midheaven are observable and measureable phenomena. The derived houses are not. The important cusps for such testing are the ones not on the angles (2,3,5,6 and their opposites). It is these houses that differ from system to system.