A great many questions on Law beta have no jurisdiction mentioned in the body or tags. While this would be nice, it's not always possible nor necessary. Also, keep in mind, that term means different things depending on the situation. In the U.S. that means what state you are in, or it means whether a federal vs state court has the right to hear a case. In comparative law, or international law circles, it can mean what country they are in. So, when jurisdiction is relevant, I try to simply ask something like "where is this taking place" or "where are you". It is always better to simply get the information you feel is missing and have it appear in the comments, or edit if you have the capability, than to vote to close. Also, not every country had a tag last time I checked. Many, but not all.
Sometimes knowing the jurisdiction is necessary to answer the question, because the answer will differ based on where the case/fact pattern arises, and in some cases, it may even differ by location within jurisdiction (such as local housing laws).
Other questions are pedantic and are seeking such commonly understood legal theories that the principal exists across jurisdictional borders and hence it's a distinction without meaning (e.g., "What are the elements of negligence?"). When a question is posed where the answer is jurisdictionally dependent, I simply place a comment seeking the jurisdiction be specified.
It is very likely that the asker may be so unfamiliar with legal principals, generally, as to not realize that this is relevant. Regardless, under no circumstances would I consider failing to list a jurisdiction as a reason to close an otherwise comprehensible question.
If someone answers when there is no jurisdiction listed, it will often be that they either feel it is not of substantial importance, or they too don't realize the answer many differ by jurisdiction so they are answering the question based on their own home rule. Oftentimes when this happens, (for example someone answers based on U.S.) the asker will tell them they need it to be relevant to another place, or ask them if the same holds true for another place.
Regardless, if it turns out that the question/answer requires editing to add a jurisdiction, I have faith in the community to note this and request it. As far as multiple correct answers, I see this as a benefit rather than a hindrance (e.g.: in the U.S. the answer is X; in the EU it is Y; in AU it is Z, etc.). Because while we are trying to answer an individual's specific inquiry, the hope is the information will exist in perpetuity to guide others when they have similar issues.
As far as how many votes a question/answer gets, to me, this is not really very important and should definitely not be a consideration for whether a question that could generate multiple answers should be closed.
If you look back at the law questions, we would have to close a great many questions for lack of listing where they are originating, if this were a closure criteria.
Closing questions for being unclear should be reserved for those questions with so little effort put into them that nobody could possibly analyze the issue posed because it lacks most of the necessary information. Not because one single factor is overlooked.
To address the fact that it was a moderator who answered, that is not different from any other user. This is a community run and monitored site, for the most part. Their answers get voted on just as any other, and they are volunteering to oversee the rare instance of an issue that cannot be policed by the community. It is not that they cannot be questioned: they can and they are. In fact, they are likely to be more open to criticism or amendment then other users.