No, because Gerrymandering is not fixable at all in this era. We have plenty of WoG to the contrary.
Basically, it started as a good thing,
False representation:
-Geogaphical starts with immediate corruption because initial implementation is naive, generating major advantage for certain factions, which gets worse over time. The root problem is not fixable even in the modern age.
--Fixes require:
---Independent oversight - Not possible for more than a few turns before they get entangled too
---Travel restrictions - Possible
---Census - Not yet possible.
---Regular reassessment - Possible, but can backfire without Census and Independent Oversight. Can cause Stability hits.
-Occupational starts with lower corruption because initial implementation is naive, favoring the lower classes, which gets worse over time as advantages compound. The root problem is not fixable even in the modern age.
--Fixes require:
---District segmentation of guilds to ensure representation - Possible.
---Top down motivation to declare new trades - Possible, any guild growing too large will motivate other guilds to vote to split it up to reduce their monopoly.
---Arbitration court for dispute - Not yet possible
---Anti-trust/monopoly laws - Possible, but not likely until the Oligraches feel threatened and push these laws
The thing with Guilds is they are forces which developed over time, and are distinct from Unions in that they are the employers. Early guilds were engines for innovation because they had motivation to improve output and techniques, while once a guild gains enough control to be independent of other agents, they start to fossilize and become conservative.
Guilds encourage local forces to push against each other to achieve personal influence. It makes the local optimum action to divide power further. Whoever gains a lot of power will see others moving to split up the power further.
Districts encourage local forces to aggregate and compound power. Whoever gains a lot of power will be motivated to gain more power.
Look at simple Word of God.
We're going to be looking at the initial voting power of noble districts being close to 5-10 times that of the artisanal districts because nobles are spread over larger areas(so they can manage and stay in contact with more people) while artisans are packed in close(so the product of one artisan can be immediately utilized by another) for efficiency reasons.
Now, consider, in what world would the noble districts not vote to oppose reducing their voting power by merging?
How would the inequalities be addressed without the social and administrative tools to maintain and analyze the census status of the districts?
Basically, Occupational means a rising new noble class of elite artisans and potentially entertainers?
You replied to one word of my post.
False representation:
A. Neither Geographical nor Organizational are "naive"; both are extensions of our already existing geographical + organizational chieftain system.
B. Geographical:
1) Geographical is unlikely to get worse over time: it's already about as bad as it can get. It will in fact get better as it starts out with intense nepotism, which then gets combated as people grow outraged.
a) Yes, obviously nepotism/corruption is not "fixable" in the limited sense of "stopped by a single action, forever."
b) However, it *can be combated.*
c) This is literally just you bringing up all of the arguments we've had about corruption and handwaving it as "unfixable, and therefore unfightable."
d) I'm still disgusted by this.
2) Geographical doesn't require independent oversight, it requires citizen outrage.
3) We already have a census system, how the hell do you think people get food? luxuries? etc.??
4) Regular reassessment happens with every new person who enters at the lowest level or moves upwards.
C. Organizational
1) Occupational is likely to get worse over time: it's might not be as bad as it can get because the corrupt chieftains are likely to be using their power to ensure more efficient leaders win. It is unlikely to be combated by outrage because everyone in it is complicit in the system rather than outside. It is, however, likely to be far more heterogenous among guilds than the geographical system.
2) District segmentation of guilds is somewhat implied by WoG.
3) Any guild growing too large will possess the power to fight other guilds seeking to reduce their monopoly. Furthermore, declaring new trades is inherently not fighting a monopoly, as the new guild will have a monopoly over the trade it was founded upon. What is likely to instead happen is that superguilds and subguilds will be created to focus on trades within a greater occupation.
4) An arbitration court for dispute already exists in the form of the King.
5) Anti-trust/monopoly laws are unlikely to occur due to the definition of guilds as being divided by trades, with competing guilds for the same trade impossible, excepting the case that guilds from different districts somehow compete, which geographical distance makes unlikely.
Frankly, what we are currently facing is an issue of how our support networks (i.e. resource supplies, infrastructure, conflict management, crime fighting) will be set up. Will they be based on geography (i.e. a mayoral system, essentially a further subdivision of our geographical chieftainship) or on occupation (i.e. a guild system, essentially a unification among people of the same jobs; a refinement of our occupational chieftainships)?
In regards to infrastructure, inter-occupational conflict management, and crime fighting Geographical is the best choice. Infrastructure (housing, roads, aqueducts, wells, etc.) is inherently geographical. Crime fighting usually has a geographic basis. Interpersonal conflict between people of different occupations will be limited to those individuals, rather than expanding to an issue significant to two different ovarching entities. Finally, geographical will emphasize neighborhoods and communities, increasing the level of individual interpersonal support that occurs. This choice essentially brings us back to our roots.
In regards to support that is not based in social issues or infrastructure, Occupational is likely the best choice. Members of the same occupation will best know what resources someone of their profession needs. It is probable that - regardless of actual interpersonal familiarity - members of the same occupation will be interested in protecting other members of their profession, in helping them further develop their skills, and, finally, in lobbying for changes important to the guild as a whole. This choice essentially brings us to something of the modern setting, an era where actual emphasis on the community has ended, and what is left is a bunch of organizations struggling for power, with the upside that usually highly developed social ties are unnecessary. I.e., it's largely location independent.
In a geographic system, power is gained by having more voters. How do you get more voters? You a) force people to move into your district against their will or w/o it, which requires pulling on a higher power or b) make your district more appealing.
In an occupational system, power is gained by having people regard you with favor. How do you get favor? You a) suck up to people, or b) do something of actual merit.
Edit: Also,
@Academia Nut How do people get voted into the "manager" position that you mentioned? They are picked by the managers, no?
Edit 2:
It's managers getting the job of manager by tradition, acclaim of peers, and appointment by the managers, who then vote on the director who votes on the mayor who votes on the governor who votes on the king.
K, so, you said this in response to the occupational issue, IIRC, but I assume it applies to both. Basically, you have employees and some employees get to the manager position due to nepotism (i.e. "tradition" and "appointment by the managers") with a dash of merit (acclaim of peers). This then just continues upward.
The issue is how it would work at the lowest level of the geographical choice. Are the "employees" citizens? Members of the leader caste? Initially the latter and eventually the former?
