Note: I am adding this paragraph as a preface to clarify something that was not clear before. IMHO, staff members of the Stack Exchange (SE) should have "full" moderator privileges to close and delete questions and answers, and suspend members, etc. This is so that they can protect us all from what I call the three P's (profanity, pornography, and plagiarism), and similar problems (the fourth p). That's their "day job" and the fact that their jobs, reputations and livelihoods are on the line gives them the requisite "skin in the game" to do this effectively. The following comments are meant to relate to "non=paid" moderators drawn from the community.
Right now, a moderator can unilaterally close a question, which can also be done with FIVE votes from qualified members of the community. Meaning that a moderator in effect has five close (or reopen) votes.
A "three vote" moderater would have three, not five votes to close or open a question, which is to say no such unilateral power. Instead, it would take TWO moderators (six votes) to close or reopen a question, or a moderator and two senior community members. It often happens that questions are closed this latter way; two or three community members vote to close, and a moderator comes along and "finishes" the job without the need for five votes.
This could come about in two ways. We could either limit all moderators to three votes, or have two classes of moderators: One or two people with five close votes, and the others with three.
I was offered a chance by Anna Lear to be a pro temp moderator for the site. I respectfully declined, partly because of day job pressures, and partly because I was uncomfortable with a moderator's unilateral closing powers. One reason I declined was that if I had full moderator privileges (and resp;onsibilities), it would have felt too much like a "day job," (and perhaps detracted from my real one.) If I had been given a chance to be a "three vote" moderator, I might have accepted it, since I could contribute to the site with extra votes that reflect my high reputation, but without having to "sweat out" whether I was doing the right thing by unilaterally closing something.
(I've been spending a lot of time on the site recently, in spite of myself. One way I justify this is by the fact that a number of what purport to be history questions are really "day job" questions in disguise. For instance, this question about troops with different backgrounds At the Battle of Zama, was the Roman army more "native" than the Carthaginian? could really be a question about the relative strengths of moderators drawn from SE vs. the Community.)
What do others think about having a group of moderators from the community with "limited" powers? That is three votes instead of five on close/open questions, and perhaps the power to "supend" accounts for brief periods (to send a message to SE moderators) but not to delete them.