That's a common misconception on how democracy (modern democracies at least) work.
Let's now imagine that we want gay marriages or abortion rights or something minor, like the right to repair, and the proposal is rebutted by the parliament.
Should the parliament respect an exponential backoff algorithm to propose them again?
I'm not sure I want that.
Democracy it's all about proposing the same things over and over again, with slight modifications, until the majority reaches a consensus on the matter.
At least that's what I understood about it.
BTW usually when a proposal is refused it won't be discussed again until the next legislature.
This is not a law per se, It"s a draft being discussed by a technical commission which is working to write a proposal for the parliament to vote.
> Let's now imagine that we want gay marriages or abortion rights or something minor, like the right to repair, and the proposal is rebutted by the parliament.
> Should the parliament respect an exponential backoff algorithm to propose them again?
Sure, put a cap on it of one parliamentary term if you're worried about it going to infinity.
Liberal democracies are relatively new, but the process of deciding norms that satisfy different groups with conflicting interests is as old as the human history.
In Italy, for example, it's already like that: legislative proposals that are not approved by the parliament lapse at the end of the legislative term.
Laws are not simply voted by the parliament, presenting them it's a process per se, with its specific rules.
Throughout history many tricks have also been developed to work around the limitations of the system, for example presenting the same law with slightly different wordings or use amendment bombing to block some proposal ad libitum (in Italy this happens a lot, there have been examples of software programs written specifically to do that: emit an infinite number of amendments so that they would never run out of them)
Of course if some group is really determined or bears enough power it can push its own agenda while smaller less powerful ones can have a very hard time to get attention, even if their proposals are good. It's not ideal, but democracy it's a process to find tradeoffs, usually not the best one, but the lower common denominator one.
Let's now imagine that we want gay marriages or abortion rights or something minor, like the right to repair, and the proposal is rebutted by the parliament.
Should the parliament respect an exponential backoff algorithm to propose them again?
I'm not sure I want that.
Democracy it's all about proposing the same things over and over again, with slight modifications, until the majority reaches a consensus on the matter.
At least that's what I understood about it.
BTW usually when a proposal is refused it won't be discussed again until the next legislature.
This is not a law per se, It"s a draft being discussed by a technical commission which is working to write a proposal for the parliament to vote.