This is not a personally stuff. This is an opinion declaration for improving SE.
From help center:
Closing is a democratic voting process where the community identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.
From the same reference:
Moderator votes are binding. Any place we have voting — close, open, delete, undelete, offensive, migration, etc — that vote will reach the threshold and take effect immediately if a single moderator casts a vote.
I think these are in contrast with each other.
Regardless of their inherent contrast, I would like to refer to another situation.
As you can see, this question has been put on hold by a moderator at 15, July, 2016. (The picture has been taken at 16, July, 2016, 03:30 UTC)
But before that time, the question had been voted to be left open by trusted users not once, but twice. (The pictures have been taken at 16, July, 2016, 03:30 UTC) I think the SE violates its own policy.
So, isn't it better to reduce moderators' authorities in order to being on the site main (perhaps democracy!) policy?
I found the above case accidentally and I cannot give other cases because of site constraints (rep>3k).