There's no doubt in my mind that some questions on this site need to be closed. I'm also convinced that we have a "pretty good" closing mechanism, whereby five users can close a question. This mechanism is likely to get better as more people get the 500+ reputation needed to vote to close or reopen.
To fill these gaps, and to move the process along, we also have moderators. That's a good thing. I'm all for giving moderators "supervoting" privileges, under my proposal, three ordinary votes. But I'm not willing to give one five, because I don't think one person, even a moderator, should have UNILATERAL closing privileges.
As I see it, there could be two ways to close a question. The first is when TWO members of the community vote to close. Then a mod comes along and completes the closure with a triple vote instead of waiting for three more from the community. End of story.
The second type of closure could be initiated by a moderator, followed by two additional votes from the community. It would highlighted as a "proposal to close" and would state the moderator's reasons. The proposal would remain open for up to 48 hours to attract two more close votes from the community, or conversely, vote to re-open. This would also give the questioner a "notice," plus an opportunity to fix the question. At the end of 48 hours, it would be re-evaluated as discussed in the closing paragraph.
As a community member, I would likely suppport a moderator his merits. In this example for instance, https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4061/what-is-a-good-place-to-buy-board-games-in-new-york I didn't exactly vote to close, but did raise a question about its merits (since I'm relatively new to the site). I would certainly have contributed one of two votes toward a moderator initiative to close this question.
So what would happen after 48 hours? At that time, the close-reopen votes be tallied. To tip the balance, a SECOND moderator could close the question with three additional votes (six in total), unless there were two or more "reopen" votes from the community (which would reduce the tally to minus 4). I understand that there are two types of moderators, those drawn from the community, and those drawn from the site itself. Ideally the two closing moderators would have one drawn from each group.