Not to be a picky sniveler, but the ranking system is a bit incorrect, in a way. While people can tie for a certain place, the ranking should reflect absolute placement.
For instance, if 10 people receive the following votes, in order: 20, 18, 18, 14, 11, 11, 11, 9, 9, 4
...then the ranking's would be:
1,T2, T2, 4, T5, T5, T5, T8, T8, and 10
Using your method, they are shown as:
1,T2, T2, 3, T4, T4, T4, T5, T5, and 6.
That is a bit incorrect, and that means that more than 10 people are in the top 10. The only way that should happen is if the last place shown has more than one person.
So to correct your current 2012 list, the 2nd column has the correct order:
01 01
02 02 nadinbrzezinski
02 02 Taverner
03 04 MrScorpio
04 05 kpete
04 05 Stinky the Clown
05 07 Omaha Steve
05 07 DainBramaged
06 09 PCIntern
07 10 grasswire
08 11 Systematic Chaos
09 12 Aviation Pro
10 13 demtenjeep (formerly greenbriar)
10 13 MiddleFingerMom
10 13 sabrina 1
11 16 Horse With no Name
11 16 11bravo
11 16 Proud2BLibKansan
11 16 Sarah Ibarruri
12 20 TheMastersNemesis
13 21 cali
13 21 HopeHoops
14 23 1StrongBlackMan
14 23 Skinner, EarlG, and Elad
14 23 the bullies
14 23 TheMagistrate
14 23 w8liftinglady
On the other hand...
Since we are dealing with feel-good, progressive dummies, we should give more awards to them just like second-graders are all told they won just for showing up.