No, this controversial proposal to "close early, close often" is probably meant to apply to fast-paced sites where there isn't enough time to consider the merits of each question carefully, have a dialogue with the OP and see improvement's can't be made efficiently without all the question-closing drama and trauma1.
When there is no substantial danger posed by the possibility of a less-than-ideal answer begin posted, then the 2, 3, 4 close votes eventually decaying back to zero is a good thing. It shows there weren't a full 5 people who felt strongly enough about answer-prevention that an answer-blocking hold should be placed.
Low question-rate sites with good, healthy communities can do nicely with the standard SE features, no need to add something exotic or experiment on our new users.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
1New users and especially when asking their first question can easily be turned of by getting their question quickly closed and any answers blocked. So for this low question-rate fairly sleepy site that certainly doesn't have an overabundance of new users joining per week, I think we should avoid an fast-paced-site solution.