I am going to step out of line here and say that I think that there is some merit in the original post.
Of course some questions should be closed, obvious spam for example. However there tends to be a little (how can I say this politely) sternness from the people with editorial control.
There are two ways of viewing this. One is that people who can vote questions can do so by virtue of a high rep and that was bestowed upon them by the community, so their will is the will of the community.
The second way to view this is while people who can close posts have a high reputation their will may not be that of the majority of users. This is evident if popular questions are being closed.
It is very delicate ground to tread getting the balance right. Especially as more and more users become moderators. It will be a struggle to keep the site accessible for new users while keeping old users happy. Making popular questions harder to close (and unpopular ones easier) is a way to keep the moderators and the newer users on the same page.
I guess I don't buy that they are completely different axes, often there is some judgement behind why a question is closed, should lower rep people have no say in if they want a question on their site.
It may help to take score into account when there are close/reopen wars going on (ie when the editors can't decide)