The short answer is no.
The goal is to have a wide selection of questions that easily give the user an idea of what they can expect on the site. Therefore, I'd imagine consistency in questions is needed. For example, rating 15 random questions would technically reach the goal, but the questions could also be so varied that the site has no clear purpose. On the other hand, if you get a good set of well-defined questions that demonstrate a working and interesting site, the final site is much more likely to succeed.
The reasoning behind having several questions with 10 or more votes is that those votes actually matter. Simply voting for the sake of voting makes everyone's vote less valuable. It would undermine what has been determined to be a reliable system for determining the likelihood of a site's success.
Finally, it would cause the commitment phase to be a flop. When people commit, they usually look at the definition and the example questions. If they can't discern a clear purpose for the site, they will move on and not commit. After all, they only have three commitments they can make at a time. I'd rather see several very well-worded, strong, and specific questions instead of several random questions that aren't necessarily great (some might be, but there's no guarantee). That way, the site will be much more likely to succeed.