If a question is unclear to a person on this site, but is actually a well formed, concise question to someone with the correct background knowledge - would the person who doesn't understand still be in the right to downvote the question based on SE's policies/rules for voting on questions?
I am getting too much extended discussion in the comments (on me) - but where this is leading me is whether or not the goal of SE is to have purely objective moderation or if the real trust lies in the reputation system which allows any and all votes under the assumption that more 'good voters' than 'bad voters'* will be participating and an objectively good moderation will be reached through that process despite the inevitable 'bad voters'*.
*Good voters and bad voters are not up/down votes, but voting cognizantly and carefully to improve the site (good) versus carelessly and ignorantly for whatever reason possesses such people (bad).