Rules / Errata & Discussion
Rules
Individual posts will represent a particular year, with the body of the post showing the final nominees and winners. The committee (posters) will post their own ballots in the comments section, as well as recommendations and discussion.
Primary Categories:
These categories follow the 100 point nominating system. A ballot must include these categories to be considered.
Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Ensemble, Best Original Screenplay, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Color Cinematography, Best B/W Cinematography (these will be combined in years where less than five of either type are nominated)
Secondary Categories:
These categories are nominated and counted as equal in value. No weight will be given via points or rank. None of these categories are required.
Best Editing, Best Art Direction / Design, Best Costumes, Best Makeup, Best Original Score, Best Original Song
Nominations:
In each primary category, a member must allocate 100 points among a maximum of 10 nominees, and a minimum of 5. No nominee can recieve more than 30 points, and no less than 5. Thus, a member may nominate seven films, as long as the total points allocated equals 100.
Ballots may be changed at anytime, provided that the number of points added or removed are annotated in the new ballot.
In order to avoid ties, the total number of final nominees will correspond to the total number of committee members posting a ballot. Thus, tabulation will begin when 5 ballots are posted in one year. Any number of members may post a ballot, and any ballot over 5 will add a slot to the final nominees. Thus, when 6 members have posted, there may be 6 final nominee slots. This proceeds to a max of 10 slots. This does not effect individual ballots. All members may post up to 10 nominees. This only effects the FINAL number of nominees. The decade administrator will be resonsible for tabulating the results and updating them every 5 ballots. Although a tabulator may decide to update the final nominees at any point, it is only required at 5, 10, 15, etc. If over 10 members post a ballot, the final nominations remains at 10. The tabulator's word is the last word.
The following is a sample ballot with points allocated, and a ballot that has been changed. Note that it's important to show the number of points being subtracted and added, as well as the new point total in order to ensure that the tabulator subtracts and adds correctly.
BEST PICTURE
The Big Sleep (18)
Notorious (17)
Beauty and the Beast (13)
My Darling Clementine (11)
Shoe Shine (11)
Paisan (10)
It's A Wonderful Life (5)
The Stranger (5)
The Black Angel (5)
Undercurrent (5)
BEST PICTURE (edited 8/10/04)
The Big Sleep (18)
Notorious (17)
Beauty and the Beast (13)
My Darling Clementine (11)
Shoe Shine (-2 to 9)
A Matter of Life and Death (+9)
The Black Angel (5)
The Stranger (-1 to 4)
Undercurrent (-2 to 3)
It's a Wonderful Life (-5 to 0)
Winners: The nomination with the most points from individual ballots will be the winner in primary categories. In secondary categories, the nominee mentioned on the most ballots is the winner.
Best of the Decade
Each decade year a committee member may post a ballot of up to 10 nominations within the following categories: Best Filmmaker, Best Performer, Best Screenwriter, Best Composer, Best Cinematographer, Best Feature Film, Best Documentary, and Best Short Film. Unlike the yearly nominees, these will be unranked and each nomination will be equal. Each artist must have at least two film credits in that decade.
Committee / Administration
All previous RT Percy participants, plus recommended cineaste's, and those who beg! Current members are:
amory_blaine, bartman_9 (Bart), harrytuttlert, liberallass, lonchaney (charlie), misterjiggy, mreguyinla, nostalghic, raidersofthefoundark, vornporn (Jeff), Yancy, jesse.
Administrators are tabulators. They have the final word in any dispute in tabulation, and are free to resolve any problem with their god-like powers and incredible will.
Harry: 90's, Nostalghic: 80's, Mreguyinla: 70's, Jesse: 60's, Jeff: 50's, Charlie: 40's, 30's, 20's
posted by Anonymous @ 3:07 PM
37 comments
37 Comments:
Item!
Feel free to comment here on new rules, since I don't really know what people liked about the Percy's (1st and the aborted 2nd Cycle), number of nom's, how we did the winners, what categories, etc.
It seems to me that we can really do more categories, since it won't be time limited, and people can edit there noms as they see films on their own schedule. I got pretty sick of watching films in a rigid schedule myself! 1933 and 1944 for a week, skipping 1955 cos I'd seen more films from that year . . . blah.
I'd much rather have the input of the people than make executive decisions on my own. It was part of the overwhelming responsibility of the Percy's that drove me away the first time.
This is a good idea. We could award all nom's on a point based level, and give a certain point value to each performance (maybe we'd could have a certain number of points to distribute in each category?)
I think we won't need to have a "minimum" number of noms, (like I only have one Song nom in 1978's post). The quality of the participants precedes any need for that.
About the multiple performance thing:
Let's say we're talking about Cary Grant in 1940. Should we give equal weight to someone who only nominates like this:
BEST ACTOR
Cary Grant for A Philadelphia Story
Jimmy Stewart for The Shop Around the Corner
...
versus
BEST ACTOR
Cary Grant for A Philadelphia Story, My Favorite Wife
Jimmy Stewart for The Shop Around the Corner, A Philadelphia Story
...
How could we count these together. If we used points, we could establish that one point goes towards each performance. So let's say there are five (5) points for the actor category.
BEST ACTOR
Cary Grant (1 - Philadelphia Story, 1 - My Favorite Wife)
Jimmy Stewart (3- Philadelphia Story)
This would enable us to count the films seperately, so that only the most nominated performances are in the final total):
Mr. Jiggy: Cary Grant (1-Phil, 1-His Girl)
Jeff: Cary Grant (2-His Girl)
Charlie: Cary Grant (3-His Girl, 1-Phil)
Mr. E: Cary Grant (1-His Girl, 1-Phil, 1-My Fav)
If Jimmy Stewart got 5 points for A Shop, and Charles Chaplin got 4 point for Great Dictator (don't ask me why so little!), then the noms would looks like this
BEST ACTOR
Cary Grant for His Girl Friday (7)
Jimmy Stewart for A Shop Around the Corner (5)
Charles Chaplin for The Great Dictator (4)
Cary Grant for A Philadelphia Story (3)
or
BEST ACTOR
Cary Grant for His Girl Friday, A Philadelphia Story (10)
The Rest ...
And this way, even though some dude voted for My Favorite Wife, it wasn't really among the nominated work
What do you guyz think about this? Could we do points, allowing multiple performances under the same nom (this would also work with directors/musicians/cinematogs, but might be difficult for screenplays since there's often a group of different writers).
Think of the tabulators (i.e. me and one or two volunteers)!
If you wouldn't want to mention Grant's perf in My Favorite wife in a list that includes 7 names, then why would you accept a nomination that includes his work in that film?
On the main page I suggest having a total of 4 points possible for any one perf/work by an artist.
Let's keep it simple.
1. No umbrella nominations for a body of work.
2. Nominations are not ranked, but winners voting is.
I wouldn't switch to a points-based system unless we had a large number of participants and you wanted to guard against the domination of the middle (well-liked by all, but passionately loved by few).
I'm totally neutral on umbrella nominations. Whatever more of our original crew wants, we'll do.
We already have 9 folks signed up for the awards on this site. Since the Year Posts are permanent, there is no real rotation of participation, since posters will have an indefinite period of time to complete their nominations for any given year. I'm emailed everytime someone posts a comment, thus I'll know when someone is posting or reposting nominations (or general comments).
My point is that a points system in place now will ensure that even if 14 or 15 people nominate in a single year, and only 5 nominate in a different year, the value of each ballot is proportional to the number of posters. This avoids any possibility of middle-domination in the future.
Also, if we used the 10 point system, then folks could just make a straight ballot of 10 nominations in each category.
Since there certaintly isn't going to be a consensus, I hope others weigh in with their opinion.
Sure, explaining these ideas is a complex process, in practice it's really only a matter of adding the digits 1, 2, 3, and 4 as opposed to only 1.
But I'll go with the majority as to how to count the nominations. Do we have a consensus that 10 nominations max and no minimum is good?
How is ranking the winners any different in practice than points for nominees? The only way I could see ranking winners working is if we distribute *points*.
I concur with Jeff and Jiggy. Maybe I didn't get it, but it looks complex (might not be self-evident to balance nominations in every category on a 1-4 pts) for with safeguard loophole. i.e. could I skew the nomination by granting my fav nominee the max pts, or by cumulating max in several films(10)? I see this as favoring only people working on several films a year.
Also I'm not sure about nomination ranking and winners, since I don't understand when and how winners are calculated... is it a live update? like : 1 member nominating equals to show his/her choice in the winners, when a second comes in, the winners show the weighted average of 2 entries? Can we re-vote to update as nomination changes...? I'm lost.
regarding this problem however, I'd like to submit my issue : I figured the winners tend to be the films seen by most voters, reflecting the majority taste, since a masterpiece seen by few gets cut to the benefit of an average film everyone nominated last for example. I don't see any easy way to fight this injustice if everyone is required to post the same number of nominations that are of unequal quality.
Also we should come up with something that allows to eliminate one of the final nomination only when we saw it (what was foremerly sorted by the "must have seen half of nomination min" condition)
From these 2 points, we could stick to :
-"ranked" nominations. number of nominations selected by voter for only the award winning worthy contenders (not fill up with runner ups, for middle-film barrage). With 10 participants, it's no sweat to get 5 or 10 final nominees (including everyone's #1) even if most didn't fill in 10 nominations. This should feature the top10 Must See of the year (without leftouts regardless for their popularity).
-the weight on the ranking should play at the winners voting stage. Maybe to go for a survivor type of elimination would only leave out the ones seen and liked less than the rest. Maybe with points for the lesser, and/or for the best... I don't know.
the 3rd issue sound fine, but too many sub-rules or half-rules or exception-dependant rules might be hard to remember and confusing.
Customization : I thought most settings would be hard coded, but this one seem to offer lots of freedom. I only briefly skimmed throug the templates, but it looks mainly to design the layout of the items. Not sure about the edit button. I see I was honored with admin powers, can I test&tweak things?
I'm with the others on the point scheme - it does make the whole process almost off-puttingly complicated. And I'm all for rankings, too.
I'll echo Harry's query about when winners would be worked out, and at what point would new Percy years be added on. Would the years in an entire Percy cycle be running in parallel to each other at any one point until everyone's noms are in???
The Blogger help says comments cannot be edited. And I didn't find out how to delete my own comment yet (i don't see the bin icon) so i'm not of much help...
Maybe what they call "multiblog" is what we need, this would mean to open a new blog for each year, so everyone could post their nominations as editable "blog entry", instead of "comments". Then linking all blogs on one multiblog page. I'm not sure if Blogger allows this on its own server (the function is designed to link to external blogs)
Harry: Anything you think you can tweak is fine. It doesn't bother me as long as I understand how everything works. In order to change the way comments work, you'd probably have to write your own comments coding and remove the blogger tags, at least that's what it looks like.
As for "multiblogs", this is a good idea only if Blogger would let us have 80 some blogs on their server, and if we were willing to have every poster be able to alter the blog settings as an administrator. We should stick with the single blog and comments ballots. As for deleting comments, their ought to be a little trash-can icon next to your posts. Admin can delete any user comment, but we should definitely only exercise that right for our own comments or the unlikely troll.
Points: We'll drop the idea, since most people feel its too complicated. I think we need to consider ranking as a way to determine both final noms and winners, as most seem to think this will be a welcome change to our past rules and a way to ensure our favorites are given more weight.
Are we dropping umbrella nominations then?
Winners: If we do a ranked Nominating system, then the winners could be calculated *automatically* as the film with the most points during nomination. This would mean there would never have to be "revoting", since folks can add nominations at anytime. This is a similar system to what the Fixing the Oscars game uses, where the winners are automatically tabulated with the nominees. We could have a ranking system that would discourage ties with odd point values (17 for first nom, 15 for second, etc.) .
Nostalghic: At some point, I'll could start adding every single year for people to post a ballot in at their discretion. Or, I could just add a couple new years every once in awhile so we can focus our discussions (I'm totally open to posting years at random, or maybe some folks have some years they really want to do right away). Not until all the rules are ironed out, of course.
I'll post a new idea for a simpler "ranking system".
Practical Blogger functions cannot be altered (hardcoded on their server), the Blogger template is exclusively about the layout and look of your page (like a CSS in HTML). If we are not happy with delete and repost, maybe another blog provider offers better options.
With the simultaneous years, and neverending updates, automatic winner is best. Althought the second vote for winners at least offers an input to voters to balance the films we'd rank differently after the cut (especialy if we didnt nominate them).
For the current pts system : i see a film ranked at least 7th on 6 lists (42pts) can beat a film ranked twice 1st on 2 lists (38pts), given some poor years the 7th films seen is really inferior to our first.
My issue is popularity plays a role to boost most-seen films and not to save underseen great films. In other words, not to vote for an unseen film (potentialy good)is as detrimental or more than to ignore it because it's seen and lesser. I mean when I see some notorious masterpieces on the ballot that i cannot vote for because I didnt see them yet, I'm forced to push my vote for lesser films knowingly, or abstain...
Some of the tie-breaker are ridiculous when voters are too few and votes too spread out. Instead of adding pts, ranks should play a stronger factor : how many times 1st, 2nd, 3rd on lists. This way popularity might rule, but at least the winner will have been ranked first by a few.
That's where we should introduce an absolute rating scale to handicap our own ballot (with something like a 5 stars ranking). In order to balance how good is the #1 on our list (compared to others' ballot and other years in absolute)
I don't know, just pondering, this doesn't seem the simpliest way yet. But all this should be handled in one step contribution (nomination updates + weighted ranking) to make the continuous uptades workable. Each time we update should automaticaly update the final winner. A CDDB-style dynamic database would be sweet (I have no idea how Dirt coded this).
I understand your issue Harry. How would the math look with weighted rankings? Should we only allow a film to be nominated if it is ranked highly on at least one list? Now *I'm* confused.
that's the idea.
If you want a mathematic formula then maybe use a wider gap between rank's pts (convenient example, maybe not the most efficient ratio):
#1 (grade A) : 512 pts
#2 (A-) : 256 pts
#3 (B+) : 128 pts
#4 (B) : 64 pts
#5 (B-): 32 pts
...
#10 : 1 pt
This way it takes 2 #2 to compete with a #1, and if someone else listed last either of these, the small amount of pts will act as a tie-breaker :
Faces : once #1
2001, ASO : twice #2 + once #10
(2001 wins the tie by 1 pt)
Overall this pt scale allows films of equivalent ranking to compete within their range. An absolute scale, where ranks are actualy grade would make the result more in tune with the voter's opinion.
Otherwise the system is detrimental to voters who have seen too many (underseen) masterpieces per year, forcing them to rank a great film up to #7 (like in 1968), which is unfair compared to other weak ballots who will rank a lesser film at #1.
Handicap : if all films i've seen from a given year aren't outstanding (compared to the films not seen), i'd give them lower ranks.
Close to the pts distributing idea, but it's easier to think and vote with rank/grade, that are "easily" tranlated in pts by tabulators :
Once upon a time in the West = (3 x #1) + (1 x #2) + (5 x #4)= 1344 pts
Let's test the new methods with a year where everyone rank their nominations, and see how the result changes.
But this puts an absurd distance between the different films that may be of relatively equal value. In 1953, if I like Tokyo Story and Ugetsu the most, I will have a real difficult time deciding which to put at 1, since it will be given a incredible advantage. No one nominations should need two nominations of the next lower rank to match it. I could see the following values working:
1) 89
2) 55
3) 34
4) 21
5) 13
6) 8
7) 5
8) 3
9) 2
10) 1
Under these circumstances, a ranking 2nd and 3rd would match the first.
A better way to incorporate A) weighted rankings and B) a balanced ballot, would be to assign a weight to different levels on the ballot. So:
1-2: 16 pts
3-4: 8 pts
5-6: 4 pts
7-8: 2 pts
9-10: 1 pt
This way we can still have some distance in weight for the upper ranks, and not have the lower ranks absurdly less valuable that a few ranked 7th couldn't beat one ranked 3rd.
Any one else? Points looks good to me after all of this!
Harry and I have been testing the two proposed formulas above. Anyone have a preference?
The problem with the straight 10-1 ranking system is the vast domination by middle films, with underseen masterpieces nominated by few getting unduly crushed by the weight of the highly visible not quite so great movies (hypothetically speaking).
Harry's system, which I agree has value in that the #1 film on anybody's ballot always has half a chance, means that a film can only place if its in the top few ranks.
My system has value in that's it's inbetween the two extremes. I say we have a final vote on what kind of system we want:
1) Low point ranks (10-1), middle film dominated, lesser-seen masterpieces lose. NO WEIGHT
2) High point ranks (512-1), top film dominated, lower ranked films have little-to-no chance of placing. HEAVILY WEIGHTED
3) Leveled ranks (16-1, 5 levels), higher ranked films on more ballots will place higher, ties are more common in the lower placements. MODERATELY WEIGHTED
I'll only cast a tiebreaking vote for the system.
The problem with the umbrella noms system you describe is that there is a discussion on each artist and their particular work during the year, a decision is made on an individual basis as to what films an artist will be nominated for. That's near impossible in this forum where we'll be doing almost every single year of feature filmdom. That's why I initially suggested a points system where multiple perf noms could be tabulated automatically.
isn't it the point to hope our #1 choice fares better than our #7? if you want the #7 to have a chance then rank it #1 ;)
But personaly if I dont have a strong #1, I would abstain from voting. The weight would seem less overwhelming with over 10 voters when the votes spread out more evenly on several favorites.
I figure my system has flaws but it might give more original results this time around and might change our ranking habits. The weight should be revised tho, maybe slightly lower : this will be a pain to tabulate, especially if it's updated all the time... Do you realize the workload? Editable posts is a must (why don't you use a RT group?)
for instance, if you know a middle film might win by popularity over your (middle film) favorite, then the correct strategy would be NOT to rank it in your nomination to suppress any support, and win the mixed majority support for your choice. This is sneaky.
I suggest to alter my system for this :
-our favorite we want to see win:
#1 = 10 pts (*** film)
-runners-up deserving to win too if promoted by majority:
#2 & 3 = 5 pts (** films)
-middle films that can only win if no strong favorite emerges:
#4 to 6 = 3 pts (* films)
-lesser alternate nominations to help break ties if they are highly ranked by majority:
#7 to 10 = 1pt (zero star films)
it makes the ranking less strict for voters, and the weight less overwhelming as we just need to part our noms in 4 groups by giving stars accordingly. This way voters can either rank from 1 to 10, or post them unranked and just add stars (1 *** film, 2 ** films, and 3 * films amongst the 10 noms). The tabulators only add up 4 different values.
From the post:
Winners: The nomination with the most points (the highest rank most often) from individual ballots will be the winner of its category.
So there isn't "winners voting" the winner is automatically tabulated from the weighted rankings. We can discuss doing a totally seperate winners voting, but I don't know how that would work at all.
I always thought the winners voting was tedious, personally.
Yes, it's not stictly a points system though, and in order to vote strategically *effectively* (to get the winner you want), you'd pretty much have to tabulate everything yourself. I suppose individual tabulators could do this, but I suspect they'd post their ballot earlier anyway. Besides, since everyone can edit their ballot anyway, it would be nigh on impossible to do something like that. I think any system has loopholes or defects. We're all adults here though.
You can vote on what system you prefer in the top thread Rules Voting.
I'm editing the post to make this clearer:
In order to avoid as many ties as possible, the total number of FINAL nominees will correspond to the total number of members posting ballots. The individual ballots are not effected by this rule.
So, if only 5 people post a ballot, it would be 5 noms per category in the FINAL post. 6 ballots = 6 FINAL noms (up to 10 FINAl noms). Again, this is something only tabulators will have to worry about.
All ballots can have up to 10 noms in every category.
At the risk of making everyone angry or bored, I think I'm coming around to the points system. I definitely want to accord some weight to films that people feel passionately about, not just the films that everyone has seen and liked moderately.
What I've seen that works (in D'Angelo's Skandies Poll, for instance) is that each voter is given 100 points to disperse in each category. You must use all 100 points, with a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 30 points per nomination. There's maximum of 10 nominees per category. Due to the point restrictions, there's a minimum of four nominees.
An example ballot might look like this:
1986 Best Picture
Armed and Dangerous - 30
Police Academy 3 - 12
Space Camp - 10
Maximum Overdrive - 9
Wise Guys - 8
Howard the Duck - 8
Short Circuit - 7
The Money Pit - 6
Raw Deal - 5
Let's Get Harry - 5
Obviously, this person feels strongly about the merits of Armed and Dangerous, but still wants to give a shout out to nine other dubious films.
I'm with you guys on the redundancy of winners voting. The point totals for the nominees will reflect the winners automatically.
I'm still against umbrella nominations.
thanks
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A point system of some kind is my ultimate preference. Your proposed system seems easy enough (I like that in points systems there's an automatic minimum). This is very similar to my 10 points system but with a zero added (your system helps break ties and eases organization)
I'm still up for this, but will add with the 5 level rank system until such time as there is a consensus.
I still needs tabulators for the 50's, 60's, 80's, and 00's.
Harry and Mre, you guys should be able to start edited posts when ballots start getting dropped. (You don't have to do 90 or 78 to start if you don't want)
Hey all- this is Othello/Jesse. I am planning on being involved here, but have had a few problems.
Charlie, could you send me another invite? I've been having problems with my username, so I'd like to try to the process again.
Also, I would have no problem being the tablulator for either the 50's or 60's.
The 60's are yours - we'll get you another invite.
Ok. I'm perfectly willing to do the tabulation in a Trial run with Jeff's system. What year?
Jeff's pts based nomination gotta be the most representative of the voter's opinion, ok. It's fine to fill a best picture ballot that way, but to do 18 categories in 80 different years is going to be insane!!! I'm having hard time to complete an unranked ballot already, so to have to give the appropriate rate out of 100 to 150 nominations (not to mention checking each add up to 100) is going to be mind boggling for weeks just to do 1 year ballot...
The weighted ranking systems had the advantage to be transparent for the voters who only need to worry about ranking them by preference, without calculating anything.
I'm worried about the perpetual update of ballots in total randomness, both for the voters motivations on the long run, and for the tabulators (!) especially with funky pts calculations... even the spreadsheet for each year will be huge. I'm scared at the job I got myself into, and I begin to understand all the work you accomplished Laszlo!
Maybe we could at least define thematic month with a short selection of years, to focus voters contribution on the same years (with more choice than before), and instil emulation.
p.s. the edit comment is required, why don't you make a RT group? we can edit comments and get notified when there is an update.
The idea with having one tabulator per decade was to allow a tabulator to look at ONE YEAR AT A TIME, and once the Post was edited (with final noms and winners), another year in that decade could be posted to the blog.
This is also why five ballots are necessary before posting a final nomination/winner tally. Maybe we can just say that the final tally will be altered every five ballots? That way, any changes that original posters may have made will count in the "second heat". Hmm, that does simplify a lot, I think. Especially since it would mean the tabulator would only have to count after every five ballots.
What do you mean by a RT thread? Maybe we could just link a thread from there to here and back again, like a shuttle for general comments and updates.
ok thanks for the clear up. Sounds more doable this way.
I'm still concerned (with unfounded anticipation) the task for voters might sound overwhelming without squedule... we merely covered half a cycle during a year with 1 ballot per week (which was quite a heavy sustained task already).
not a thread, a group, like a collective journal in the vine. The blog format is much trendy and class, but might not be efficient for what we want to do with it.
Maybe another blog host offers pertinent options to ease our job. (Doug Cumming's blog http://filmjourney.weblogger.com/discuss/?mode=topic at weblogger.com allows full HTML editable comments, but it's not free!)
The RT group concept appears to be easy to use. You can restrict and manage membership, can create topical pages, comments are editable and threaded, replies are notified...
just take a look at it ;)
i dont know what's wrong with me I still cant see any trash can icon to delete my posts. I see Jiggy successfuly deleted a post already so I mus be dumb that's all :S
Althout editable comments would be better than a bunch of "deleted posts" whiches dont look good if anything else ;)
Um, you can take a look at it if you'd like. I've always been comfortable with blogger, even without editable comments.
I'll volunteer to tabulate the 50's.
I should have a 1946 ballot ready in about a week. On its way to my house, via Netflix: Duel in the Sun, An Angel on My Shoulder and The Murderers are Among Us.
You can put me down for tabulating the 80s (I'm assuming from previous posts that results would be updated after every FIVE ballots?)
Yes, every 5 ballots the front post would be updated. It's definitely a good idea for the tabulators to wait until we figure out which system we'll use. We'll know after this '46 ballot.
As far as the 89, 78, and 90's posts, if the tabulators of those decades want to do a different year, that's fine.
If you can't fill a category with ten nominees, that's a problem. Maybe only Best Picture should be point-based, and all the other categories are done the old way (unranked).
There's no fair way to weigh the votes when there are different numbers of nominees in each ballot.
Post a Comment
<< Home