ISSUE #3: Why Vote "No"? (or, cutting off your nose to spite your face)

This is not an argument for Yes or No based on any particular issue. It's a practical question regarding choices and options.

The debate over what should and should not be in the proposed New Constitution is over. We have a bill. Two-thirds of the Parliament have voted for it. The public will be voting on it in November.

As such, if we're voting, we have ONLY TWO CHOICES: Either we vote yes and get the new constitution, or we vote no and keep the old one. Pick one – old constitution or new constitution. There is no third option on Nov. 25th.

So, here is my question: Are those voting "no" saying that the new constitution is WORSE than the current one? It's not about what is the best, most ideal, most perfect Constitution. It's not about your personal wish-list for constitutional provisions. The perfect constitution is not on the ballot on Nov. 25. So, the question is, which option is better?

I've heard opposition members applaud various provisions in the new Constitution, but still say that they are voting "no". Why? Is there something in the new Constitution that is worse that what exists in the old one? Or is it just that they don't think it goes far enough? Because "not going far enough" doesn't seem to be a reason to vote "no," not if you see overall improvement. If the new Constitution makes "one small step" instead of "one giant leap," shouldn't you, at this point, support the small step?

What am I missing?