Given the events of the morning (at least the UTC morning), it's clear that the ability to make minor edits, such as what was described in the linked post, can be used to abuse specific features of the network. However there is a big step between a single edit that adds whitespace, and wholesale abuse of the system, and had a block been in place, nothing would be changed except we'd have a bigger mess to clean up.
Why do I think it wouldn't have prevented anything? The simple fact is the individuals in question were determined to perform the actions they did. It takes a lot of effort to manually edit that many posts to just add white space just to be unable to undo that many votes.
The point is, if someone is determined enough to do this, then they are going to find a workaround regardless of the roadblocks that are thrown at them. Rather than adding white space, they might have added text to a post to make it look like a legit edit (which would have been worse as now we would have a huge mess to clean up) to get around this proposed prohibition. In the end, there's no fail safe in the world that would have prevented the actions of those individuals so this check is an unnecessary step.
I would rather see the efforts spent on putting together a serial editing script that can generate flags for Mods or 10K users if a specific user is performing numerous similar edits across multiple posts in a short time frame. This would put intelligent human eyes on something so a proper judgement can be made, rather than a boolean good/bad decision as a computer could make.