"Sunset clauses aren't reliable mechanisms (patriot act)."

I don't know how often sunset clauses are used in (US) federal legislation, but I do recall that the original "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994[1] had, and eventually utilized, a sunset clause. The law did, in fact, expire in its entirety in 2004.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

That's a good contrapoint, and one I'll have to read up on.

But that is up to the people to pressure for change. As long as most fear the ever dreadful terrorist and as long as the ever going war on terror creates new terrorist, there is an everlasting accepted need for the patriot act.

And here with the new surveilance against corona, we will probably find out, that to fight new more dangerous deseases and of course terrorism, crime and pedophiles, we cannot really give up on these tools. There is no alternative, like my chancellor merkel says with everything. And when enough people believe it, it is true.

People don't vote on causes. Majority of people wanting something does not mean it can pass at all.

"Majority of people wanting something does not mean it can pass at all."

Depends. It does not matter for example, if the majority wants to have nice weather, no. But if the majority would insists on mandatory privacy, for example, then yes, it would pass. But they do not. Most give up privacy voluntarily for all their "free" apps and services.

In contemporary America, there are host of issues where polls consistently shows majority wants x, but it does not matter in actual politics. Two parties mean that average person opinion on this or that issue does not matter all that much.

Same if other countries I am sure, but America is the topic.