A commenter here draws attention to John Richardson at The Ugley Vicar posting on why he would vote 'no' to the Covenant.
I argue the opposite. Conservative Anglicans concerned about both truth and unity, about speaking up for the truth and against false teaching, should vote for the Covenant. Here are my reasons:
(1) Without the Covenant the Communion will remain in its current state, divided, diversifying, and dying (as a fellowship of churches which are not in fellowship with each other). The Covenant offers a way out of the mess not as some argue because it is, in itself, a recipe or mechanism for unity and communion but because member churches saying 'yes' to the Covenant would be member churches re-finding and renewing their intention to work on division, limit diversity in belief and practice, and give new life to being a 'Communion.' All Anglicans, including all conservative Anglicans should support the Covenant for this reason alone.
(2) We are at an extraordinary cross-road in the life of the Communion. If this were an ordinary cross-road, if the Covenant was (so to speak) just another bright proposal from the bureaucracy of the Communion thought up on an otherwise rainy, dull day in London, we might feel it was unhelpful to the cause we believe in (as many progressives and many conservatives do feel, and provide arguments against it, as John Richardson does). Voting it down would then be a vote against bureaucrats having bright thoughts on dull days about unnecessary additions to the panoply of Communion life. But at this extraordinary cross-road, brought on by progressive Anglicanism pushing the boundaries of Anglican diversity, the Covenant is a means of saying to ourselves that there are limits to Anglican diversity around the globe, than 'Anglican' has specific content in doctrine and in practice which can be held up as something to which member churches are accountable. For conservatives to vote against the Covenant is to vote for unlimited diversity in future Anglicanism. Is this the direction conservatives want to go in?
(3) The Covenant will not stifle member churches from speaking up (a specific objection of John Richardson's).
Conservatives should vote for the Covenant, even with reservations, in order to draw a line in the sand in respect of progressive power to control the character of future global Anglicanism.
I am not prepared as a conservative to collude with progressives in furthering their very clear agenda in voting the Covenant down.
Postscript: to put all this in another way ...
The Covenant by itself will not make the Communion all that conservatives would like the Communion to be. Conservative reservations about the Covenant are understandable and worth stating on the public record. Yet conservatives should support the Covenant because the Communion without the Covenant will be all the progressives want the Communion to be and that will be worse in the long-run for conservatives.