The argument seems unassailable. A divided opposition will keep the Liberals in power. The United Alternative Conference, soon to meet in Ottawa, will attempt a realignment of Canadian politics. It aims to stop the Liberals from winning elections by default.

But is the argument unassailable The unstated premise is that given our voting system, a divided opposition has no hope of unseating the Liberals. It is true, under a first-past-the-post electoral system vote splitting kills. Usually, most voters reject the Liberals, yet they win. Given our voting system, conservatives cannot spread themselves over two parties and hope to win. But if so, there are two solutions.

Preston Manning's united alternative is only one solution. The other is to change the voting system. The current electoral system penalizes vote splitting, and gives 100% of power to a party supported by 38% of the voters. Change that, and there is no need for a united alternative.

Manning, after leading the charge, now thinks it is naughty that some voters are Reform and others Conservative; he wants to blend them. If successful, chances are the product will be indistinguishable from the current Liberals. So what has been achieved A better approach asks how voters of all stripes can vote their principles and beliefs without wasting their vote due to a vote split. What needs changing is not

people's voting preferences, but the way those preferences are counted.

Is that so impossible Not at all. Most democracies have a more proportionate voting system than ours. The Washington, DC-based Center for Voting and Democracy holds that Canada and the US are the only countries with a population over 12 million to not have some proportionality in their electoral system. Ours is the most disproportionate of all. In the last federal election, two parties each received 19% of the vote. For one party this yielded 60 seats, for the

other just 20. Two parties received 11% support. For one party this yielded 44 seats, for the other just 20 seats. What is wrong is not that some votes are Reform and others PC; what is wrong is how we count those votes.

There is no lack of alternatives. Alternatives range from a slight adjustment of our present system to full proportional representation, or the system recently proposed for Great Britain. To end vote splitting, to ensure votes count equally, and to allow Canadians to vote their true beliefs, can be done very easily by slightly modifying the present system. Designating 15% to 20% of all seats as "at large", and allocating those to correct the inequalities would do what the united

alternative aims to do. It would prevent both, the Liberals from winning against a divided opposition, and any party from having 100% of the power on less than 50% of the vote.

There is one additional compelling reason for the United Alternative Conference to consider electoral reform - every other proposal is impossible.

There is less possibility of uniting conservatives in Canada today then for most of our history. Diefenbaker did it once, more recently Mulroney did it twice. Both succeeded with seats from Quebec, but those seats have since turned separatist. Quebec conservatives are now

marching to their own drummer. But that is not all. There are fiscal conservatives concerned about high taxes, and social conservatives promoting traditional values, Atlantic Canada and Ontario's Red-Tories appreciate government, while western conservatives distrust government.

Canadian conservatism is divided. Joe Clark's personal ambition is not the only obstacle to uniting the conservatives. Clark represents a valid diversity. Unlike Liberals, conservatives are less prone to sacrifice principles for power. Asking conservatives to pragmatically bury all differences is not the conservative way. Asking the political right to limit

competition runs against the grain of free enterprise. The united alternative will succeed if it is true to the conservatives' believe in principles, diversity, competition, free enterprise, and its distrust of large organizations controlled from the top. The proposals on the table so far deny what Canadian conservatism is all about.

But all is not lost. Preston Manning aims to unite diversity before the election. Most democracies unite diversities after the election through coalition government. Uniting the political diversity in large, pragmatic, catch-all parties before an election is the traditional Canadian way. It suits the Liberal mind set. It is designed to paper over all the cracks, to focus on power rather than principles,

personalities rather than platforms. But it is not the conservative way. Conservatives favour principles such as personal initiative, independence, and common sense, instead of slick professionalism. Such values require a voting system that unites political diversity after the election, instead of forcing people under one umbrella before the election.

The United Alternative conference would do well to place electoral reform high on its agenda. Unlike most of the ideas up for discussion, voting system reform is not tainted by narrow, partisan self-interest. Giving voice to voters, improving democracy, ensuring a more representative Parliament, wasting fewer votes, preventing the anomaly of translating 38% of support into 100% of the power, is an agenda clearly in favour of citizens, not parties.

Conservatism would thrive under a more proportional electoral system. Forcing sameness on conservatism goes against its grain. If the United Alternative conference finds common cause in making our system more representative it will not have been a wasted effort.