Meanwhile, Cheryl has written an article on the Feminist SF blog about Hugo voting that, among other things, takes a shot at a common fallacy that causes people who are otherwise qualified to nominate to disqualify themselves. This fallacy amounts to, "I'm not qualified to nominate because I haven't read/seen everything that was published/shown last year, so I can't possibly know if what I liked was the best there was."
My reply to anyone who claims that they haven't read everything published last year is a very big, So What? Nobody can read or watch everything. Nobody should be expected to do so. Nominate the things you enjoyed and that you think would be worthy of an award. Don't worry if you somehow missed some worthy work. If others read/saw it and liked it, they'll nominate it. The process is stronger the more members of Worldcon participate, and you weaken if if you are eligible to nominate and self-disqualify yourself for specious reasons.
Besides, you can bet that there are other members who don't have such (unnecessary) scruples, and they are nominating. So if you want to counteract them, you have a responsibility to cast your own nominating ballot.
And please don't worry if you can't fill in every space in every category. For example, you might not have read any short fiction last year. That's okay. Leave categories blank if you have no ideas. I don't think I'm telling tales out of school to reveal that, in my past years of being a Hugo Award Administrator, the ballot that filled in every space in every category was the exception, not the rule.
While I'm one of those people who thinks that we make people pay too much to get their WSFS voting rights, and that WSFS only accidentally did so by the way we tied voting and initial attending membership rates together, the first step toward increasing voter turnout is to get the thousands of people who are already eligible to nominate to do so. Do your duty, folks!