The commonly cited response to the many discussion threads that ask 'Please redistribute your votes to questions with a score of less than 10' is that redistribution to 'push through' a proposal is ultimately detrimental to the proposal, as the proposal will be badly defined when progressing.
I do not think that votes should be cast in order for the proposal to be completed. This might look attractive in the short, because it allows to proposal to move to the next stage. But it will be harmful in the long run as it will weaken the process of defining what an appropriate question is. Vote should help identify good questions, not help us move to the "commit" step. Rushing does not help if it implies working on shaky grounds
However, a common response is that the suggestion isn't to redistribute votes to any old question scored below 10, but to any good question scored below 10. Of the 80 or so example questions on a proposal, it's likely that more than five of them deserve your upvote.
I'd totally agree with you if: 1 - each user didn't have just 5 votes; 2 - things change on private and public beta, leading to discussion of what is on and off-topic; and 3 - gaming the system would be "vote on questions that are almost there, no matter if you agree or not". Many upvotes on the first questions happen just because they're already in the top, and people don't notice that there are good questions on the second page too, etc.
So the question is, if we agree that for any given user, a proposal will have more than five questions that the user considers 'good', is it detrimental to the proposal if they shift their votes to the good questions that have a score of less than 10?