This chapter examines the fate of Chile’s second constitutional proposal and argues that its rejection primarily stemmed from its failure to secure key societal rights, such as abortion, which led to uncertainty and alienated key segments of the electorate. Intended as a moderate alternative to the first draft, it was insufficiently pragmatic, which fostered ambiguity on critical issues that left it vulnerable to political attacks. Apart from substantive flaws, constitutional fatigue and shifting political context also played crucial roles. After four years of debates, unfulfilled promises, and worsening economic and social crises, many Chileans disengaged from the process. Compared with the first plebiscite, in which rejection was framed as an opportunity to draft a better alternative, the second referendum forced voters to opt between adopting a flawed document or finally ending the constitutional process. Many were weary of the prolonged uncertainty and, faced into a trade-off mindset, opted for the latter. The chapter argues that both constitutional failures originated from a misdiagnosis of the needs of Chileans—pragmatic reforms and not ideological restructuring. It concludes that a minimalist constitution, one that would have preserved existing rights while addressing structural flaws, may have succeeded where both proposals failed.