I feel your pain. I hate seeing bad suggested edits approved, but per my emphasis, the issue is the approvers, not the suggesters.
If the suggesters were the problem, the fix would be easy, but the people making the suggested edits are not the people we trust to make edits. If we trusted them to make good edits, there would be no need for suggested edits.
Personally, I believe the biggest problem with editors is not the edits, but the fact that they don't get told they might be doing something wrong. If editors are more directly informed of rejected edits and provided better feedback without forcing them to hunt for something they don't know exists, then I would agree they they need to take more responsibility. But until that happens, it is unfair to try to correct their actions via punitive measures.
What I am trying to get at is that the problem is the approvers. We trust them to be able to make quality edits without review, so we should be able to trust them to review edits and make judgements on quality.
So when bad edits get approved, the onus should be on them, not the editor.
Of course, the editor needs to be educated as to why the edit wasn't good enough, but the approvers are the ones who need to be held accountable. If you can come up with a good idea on how to hold them accountable, I think the community would listen as that has proved to be a challenge.