There is quite a high close rate here on Programmers.SE. I think it's fair to say that not everyone agrees with some of the decisions to close. As a result there's also a fairly high re-open rate. That's got me wondering why I have to wait until something is closed to say "hey guys, I don't want this closed." Or alternatively why I have to wait until something is re-opened to say "no way, it was closed for good reason." As it stands, when you see people are voting to close something you think should stay open, you have no options other than silence, and the same when people are voting to re-open something you think should stay closed.
Could it hurt, once one close vote has been cast, to have a "don't close" vote option, and in order to close it you need 5 more close than don't close? Ditto for the re-open process? I think there would be less ping-pong this way.
Edit: I don't expect this to change the overall close rate at all. Imagine a question where 100 people with close power have an opinion. 60 want it closed and 40 want it open. Today, we could have 9 cycles of open/close (5 vote to close, 5 vote to re-open, 5 vote to close...) before it's finally closed. Under this setup, everyone would vote the first time and it would close 45-40. Only when there was a timing issue, with the voting happening while mostly closers were online, would stuff re-open. And it would take an even weirder timing issue to create close-reopen-close.
But yes, if 5 people want it closed and 95 want it open, it would never close. And I consider that a good thing, too.