I appreciate your concern, I regularly look what others voted after I cast mine when voting to reopen, and I often do et the feeling I am alone in giving a question a second chance. There is currently little incentive for a reviewer to comment the reason for their decision (as a chance to help the OP who is obviously struggling to get the question in an acceptable form). And although the original close voters are listed below a question, few can see who kept a question from re-opening and as such a reviewer you never get a question (as a comment or as email) from the OP on why you did not vote to reopen, as you do when voting to close.
What I suggest you could try and see if it makes a difference to comment to the OP when you do a close review yourself (if the tendency is towards closing as it normally is) or reopen review, urging the OP to do their bests or not bother.
I am under the impression that many of the non-reopened questions are not reopened because of the same reason they were closed in the first place: the OP not really bothering, or being able to, to try and find out if the question (s)he has is appropriate for the site and/or understandable by those reading it without the OPs background.
For such an non-bothering OP an extra message might hardly make any difference. In the same way that a large percentage don't seem to understand this place is not a forum and use the comments to "improve" their question instead of making the original post crisp and understandable. So although the hard numbers of chances of reopening are ok, but the notion of big quality change is IMO to vague, direct links to relevant and practical information on how to create such a change would be required.
Not knowing how to comment to the OP in a way (and with information that makes a difference) has kept me from making more helpful comments. My idea was to have some meta answers) as reference point(s) for such comments, but I have to confess it's easier just to do a quick review wihtout further bothering.