Constitution Referendum: Yes or No?

I almost made up my mind about this, and I've decided to vote no, but now I'm I starting to see different opinions and I'm reconsidering. I'm reading different opinions as I write this, and I'm going to state all the reasons why to vote yes or no. When I finish this post, I'm going to decide which to choose. if you haven't yet read the amendments, do so here. If you want to do more, you can read the whole constitution here

Here are the reasons to vote yes:

1. So the army leaves soon. The longer the army stays, the longer we have military rule, the longer we wait for democracy. Even if we have a presidential committee, one member is going to be from the military and the head might also be from the military.
2. Voting no wouldn't mean that there will be a new constitution. It will only mean that the amendments are not accepted, and we're back to square one. What would the next step be? nobody can claim to know. We'll have to wait for the army to have mercy on us and accept that we write a new constitution. 
3. However, voting yes confirms that there will be a new constitution.
4. We can't have a new constitution without having a committee to write it. This committee must be voted for by the parliament, which we currently don't have. This means that we can't have a committee to write the constitution without having a parliament which we'll only have after voting for the referendum.

Here are the reasons to vote no:

1. If the parliamentary elections will come before the presidential ones, this will mean that they will be very soon. This will mean that new parties will not have time to have an electoral program. This will only leave us to choose between the MB and the NDP. This will take us back to the time when our whole parliament was MB and NDP, which is not a post-revolution parliament.
2. According to the amendments, after the parliament is elected, it's going to vote for a committee to write the new constitution. The committee that will write the "new" constitution will be voted for by the MB and NDP.
3. If they're going to do the parliamentary elections, then write a new constitution, then this would mean that the army will stay until the new constitution is written anyway.
4. Article number 75 states that all the candidates and their parents must have never had any other citizenship. Meaning that even if they give up their other citizenship they can't run for presidency.
5. Article number 139 states that the president should appoint a vice president. Why appoint? Why can't we vote for a vice president just like we'll vote for a president?
6. The vice president's tasks are to be set by the president, so simply the president can give him one silly task and nothing else.
7. Amendments to Article number 77 state that the duration of the presidential term is four years. While article number 190, that was not amended, states that the duration is six years. Some say that this article was not used after Sadat finished his first term and is now inoperative. The question is: what does it take to make it operable again?
8. Article number 76 explains who is part of the committee that monitors the elections. Everyone in this committee was appointed by the minister of justice (and we heard nothing about this changing), who is part of the government, this makes this committee not an independent one.

OK so I'll vote no. Now if the majority votes no, what could be done?

Instead of voting on the constitutional amendments, we vote for a head of a committee that writes a new constitution. If we must, then we can have a transitional constitution that states the main articles needed for this period and those that are needed to prove that we don't have another pharaoh. Then have a new constitution written after the presidential elections based on the transitional constitution. This way, the army will leave soon, and we will have a small constitution that promises a democratic life. This will also give more time to the new parties that are still under construction to plan their electoral programs.