Sadly, a profoundly serious system glitch renders the system unreliable in that regard and claim, as follows:
Once a user attaches his profile as a supporter to a particular camp position, the system purports to give that user veto power, by objection, to subsequent edits to that camp statement.
Ostensibly, this would suggest the system to be reliable and fair in its functional prohibition that would seem to prevent a scenario in which a camp is edited to say something different that it did, when a supporter attached his name as a supporter, and thereby give the false and dishonest impression that the supporter still supports the now edited camp.
Ostensibly, to avoid such a scenario, the system purports to notify supporters of camp edits by email. Once an edit takes place, supporters have a limited time (24 hours to my recollection) to veto the edit by objection. If they do not, the edit goes live with their ostensible support.
Unfortunately, and quite seriously and alarmingly, the current system management has acknowledged to this author the system alert functionality to be known to be unreliable at this time due to system issues. Also, management has acknowledged that email alerts are generally known to be less than completely reliable due to the known nature of the internet.
So, management has, in effect, acknowledged that the support tally and the specific identities of supports of specific camps is known to be unreliable.
This is a monumentally serious issue that renders the system unreliable and not credible.
This author suggests that full disclosure of this issue is ethically obligatory to all users and visitors, and that the only reliable remedy to it is to modify the system such that written approval of supporters is mandatorily required for all edits to go live without time out over-rides for non-responses to unreliable email alerts.
See also: Support Accountability and Transparency