If you add yourself, bitserve, then that is six volunteers.
Maybe this group could share the job.
If a vote is needed (and it looks like option 1 is winning) then maybe the group stand as one entity and the vote can be opened up to anyone else who wants to stand against it, or anyone within the group who would rather stand alone, of course?
We can have a chat about some essential agreement on how we would moderate collectively - which we could publish (and then how we organise any rota, so there would not be too many moderating at the same time).
Also a loose system for sorting out any disagreements on collective policy / replacing a mod with a new one if needs be over time (majority vote of existing mods?).
If option one allows for a group to moderate the thread, I'd be happy to be a part as long as the permissive spirit of the thread is upheld.
If option one doesn't allow for a group, then I was thinking the OP could employ a mod bot. Select members could pm the bot with a #postid to report or remove content. The OP could limit or revoke this right for a user if they were abusing it.
Ironically I am sort of suspicious of anyone who would want to be 'The Candidate' as I have a distrust of anyone who seeks power, because they are usually just the sort of person who I don't want to have it.
That's part of the problem. Those best able to moderate may not wish to seek approval. I'd put forward a number of people like Elwar, Gentlemand, etc...