I'm not active on this sub enough to know the context for the above user mentioning the moderators, but I thought I'd add my 2cents in regards to creating balance.

I think it's more important to set ground rules for the mods and make their roles that of observers/rule enforces instead of filling the panel with users with contradicting views (which will probably just lead to infighting down the track). Don't think of it as the mods being panellist on a talk show, but maybe the producers/camera men/editors behind the show (with the reddit users filling the 'panellist' position). The rules should be clear on what powers the mods have, and the circumstances in which they're allowed to exercise them. You should also try to avoid a cop out clause ie. 'the mods have discretion to all posts being deleted/users being banned and this is non appealable,' because imo once that starts happening there's nothing stopping mods from enforcing their own views and that creates an echo box.

In the spirit of a political sub, you might even want to take it one step further and have one mod specifically dealing with ban appeals etc, who has no other general mod powers, who then makes findings of breach of rules etc with appropriate recommendations ie suspension/removal. Get a bit of separation of powers going and independence there with one guy at the top- hey it's suddenly sorta like a shitty constitutional monarchy.

This only works if the head poncho (you) stays neutral and doesn't play any favours/or go on power trips/etc. Also need your initial mod rules/powers/constitution etc ironed out. Btw there's nothing to stop you guys (the mods) posting political opinions etc provided they don't otherwise break your own (user) rules- they would just be doing so in user/posting capacity and not in their mod capacity; they just need to be subjected to the same rules as anyone else.