I disagree with this suggestion. It's acceptable and desirable for the community to express its rejection of bad posts in unambiguous ways. A question that accumulates a downvote every minute or two is clearly and quickly marked as unacceptable in a way that other members of the community can observe and learn from. If that information is denied to the community, then it will be harder to express community norms in a way that newer users, lurkers, and passers-by can understand. This will have an overall negative effect on the maintenance and transmission of Stack Exchange quality standards when the user base expands or changes.
Also, a highly-negative score is useful to users who contribute time to community moderation. It lets them know the question is likely in need of editing or closure and can help them triage where they focus their attention. Removing this information from users who spend time improving the site will degrade overall site quality as it will reduce their efficiency.
Setting aside the negative side effects of implementing this suggestion, I don't see any corresponding benefit to the site or the community. The intended direct outcome is that there will be fewer downvotes to certain low-quality questions. However, there is only one beneficiary to this outcome - a certain class of users that are likely to ask poor-quality questions and then become offended when the community notifies them that their questions are not up to standard. In my opinion, this type of user needs all the education they can get and trying to coddle them is no benefit to anyone.