@AliceD All very good points, and I think you're right. I wouldn't argue against the fact that quality should come first (especially on a site with relatively few users like Bio.SE which requires minimal mod work as you've said). But I just simply wanted to point out that other fact about rep/mod tools as another way to think about things. (Besides, without pointing it out, how do I really ever stand a chance of beating you ;p).
@theforestecologist I wouldn't bet on me winning this election. I would like to, but I lost the previous round too and you have a really good reputation overall on this site. Importantly, your Q&A has been upvoted better and that score was a good predictor of election outcomes last time. The thing that improved for me substantially over last time is the overall participation score improving the participant score, so yeah, I probably make a chance I guess.
@AliceD no offense, but don't be silly! You are the 3rd user by rep on the site! So obviously your Q&As have been "upvoted better" than anyone else but 2 people.
Which is not to say that rep is any indication of mod quality, but that was the point you made.
@AliceD Ah, OK, that makes more sense. And I hadn't seen your nomination when I wrote that, I thought you were citing "low reputation" as a reason not to nominate. Which, of course, is absurd coming from the 3rd user on the site! :)
@terdon I totally agree. Rep is just basically a reflection how much time you spend answering questions. Plus, generating hot questions also means strategic answering, so heaps of rep can depend on answering a Q within the hour (hot window), or after 2 hours (hotness out of the question)
@terdon Yes haha. Rep is not really a limiting factor for sure.
Mods do a lot of work nobody knows about, everyone complains if they make a mistake but usually nobody even realizes it when they do their jobs well. They are often the target of users' ire and are exposed to all the ugliness that their actions protect other users from.