It is commonly said that the voter turnout in Iraq is going to be so low that the results will be almost meaningless. However, to me, it seems that the voter turnout in this election is rather irrelevant.
Why? Well, one analogy is the voter turnout during the American Revolution. Of course, this is not a completely apt comparision but it's nice for a thought experiment.
During the American Revolution, voters faced possible retribution from loyalists and, of course, the British Army. Furthermore, there were many requirements that must be met, such as being male, white, and a landowner. As a result of these factors, voter turnout for the state/colony general assemblies and the Contentinal Congress were often terribly low.
Yet, the important fact remains, that people voted. It is commonly said in the U.S. that if you do not participate in an election, you have no right to complain. Will the vote in Iraq be dangerous? You bet. However, the people will vote. Estimates show that even with potential boycotts and the danger, turnout may reach over 70%. Won't it be interesting if turnout in Iraq surpasses turnout in the 2004 election in the United States?
I would have to say that the fact that the election takes place at all is what is important, not how many Iraqis turn-out.
While our opinions on the war may vary, I would think anyone in America, and anyone in the world should wish the Iraqis the best in their election, and be filled with happiness to hear about each voter who casts their vote.