While I can't speak for other sites, I definitely wouldn't like to see this happen on History SE.

I don't have a decent sample stats to hand, but it seems that we already have a high closure rate. One of our mods, T.E.D., posted the following in a meta answer (concerning the 3 days previous to his answer):

Percentage of new questions closed:

• History 45%
• Politics  38%
• Skeptics 25%

Now, whether that's because History attracts more bad questions, or because History reviews are more active, or because History users are stricter in their requirements is open to debate. I do not pretend to know the answer, but I sure that it's not our mods who are doing the closing – they rarely close unilaterally (unless the Q is wildly off-topic or offensive).

Personally, I feel that we close too many questions on History, and I know that I am not the only one who thinks this. Questions also tend to get closed very quickly, often leaving no time for the OP to edit (though it's also true that many OPs see the feedback but make no attempt to edit to avoid closure).

Consequently, having a three-vote-to-close system on History would be (again, in my opinion – I do not claim to speak for everyone on our site) detrimental to our site. The problems other sites have which you mentioned in your question do not seem applicable to History.

I'm hoping that SE would not be averse to allowing some sites to maintain a 5 vote system while others have a 3 vote system.

While I can't speak for other sites, I definitely wouldn't like to see this happen on History SE.

It seems that we already have a high closure rate. One of our mods, T.E.D., posted the following in a meta answer (concerning the 3 days previous to his answer):

Percentage of new questions closed:

• History 45%
• Politics  38%
• Skeptics 25%

The very useful link provided by Shog9 in a comment below shows that History had a closure rate of 38.49% in 2020, not the highest but more than the large majority of SE sites.

Now, whether that's because History attracts more bad questions, or because History reviewers are more active, or because History reviewers are stricter in their requirements, is open to debate. I do not pretend to know the answer, but I am sure that it's not our mods who are doing the closing – they rarely close unilaterally (unless the Q is wildly off-topic or offensive). Just to be clear, I'm not anti-closing: the large majority of the closed questions deserved to be closed.

Personally, I feel that we close too many questions on History, and I know that I am not the only one who thinks this. Questions also tend to get closed very quickly, often leaving no time for the OP to edit (though it's also true that many OPs see the feedback but make no attempt to edit to avoid closure). Of course (as Mast points out in a comment below), Qs can be reopened but, as has been noted by quite a few History Meta users, that isn't easy even when an edit has fixed the main weakness.

Consequently, having a three-vote-to-close system on History would be (again, in my opinion – I do not claim to speak for everyone on our site) detrimental to History. The problems some other sites have which you mentioned in your question do not seem applicable to History.

I'm hoping that SE would not be averse to allowing some sites to maintain a 5 vote system while others have a 3 vote system.

While I can't speak for other sites, I definitely wouldn't like to see this happen on History SE.

I don't have a decent sample stats to hand, but it seems that we already have a high closure rate. One of our mods, T.E.D., posted the following in a meta answer (concerning the 3 days previous to his answer:

Percentage of new questions closed:

History 45% Politics 38% Skeptics 25%

Now, whether that's because History attracts more bad questions, or because History reviews are more active, or because History users are stricter in their requirements is open to debate. I do not pretend to know the answer, but I sure that it's not our mods who are doing the closing - they rarely close unilaterally (unless the Q is wildly off-topic or offensive).

Personally, I feel that we close too many questions on History, and I know that I am not the only one who thinks this. Questions also tend to get closed very quickly, often leaving no time for the OP to edit (though it's also true that many OPs see the feedback but make no attempt to edit to avoid closure).

Consequently, having a three-vote-to-close system on History would be (again, in my opinion - I do not claim to speak for everyone on our site) detrimental to our site. The problems other sites have which you mentioned in your question do not seem applicable to History.

I'm hoping that SE would not be averse to allowing some sites to maintain a 5 vote system while others have a 3 vote system.

While I can't speak for other sites, I definitely wouldn't like to see this happen on History SE.

I don't have a decent sample stats to hand, but it seems that we already have a high closure rate. One of our mods, T.E.D., posted the following in a meta answer (concerning the 3 days previous to his answer):

Percentage of new questions closed:

• History 45%
• Politics  38%
• Skeptics 25%

Now, whether that's because History attracts more bad questions, or because History reviews are more active, or because History users are stricter in their requirements is open to debate. I do not pretend to know the answer, but I sure that it's not our mods who are doing the closing – they rarely close unilaterally (unless the Q is wildly off-topic or offensive).

Personally, I feel that we close too many questions on History, and I know that I am not the only one who thinks this. Questions also tend to get closed very quickly, often leaving no time for the OP to edit (though it's also true that many OPs see the feedback but make no attempt to edit to avoid closure).

Consequently, having a three-vote-to-close system on History would be (again, in my opinion – I do not claim to speak for everyone on our site) detrimental to our site. The problems other sites have which you mentioned in your question do not seem applicable to History.

I'm hoping that SE would not be averse to allowing some sites to maintain a 5 vote system while others have a 3 vote system.