No. More blades isn't better, and smaller swept area is worse.
In essence it's the swept area that matters, not the number of blades. (Edit: But see Adrian's post above for reasons why more blades can be somewhat worse aerodynamically.) Fewer blades just means they have to be designed to decelerate a thicker slice of air ahead of and behind them on each pass. Once all the air between two consecutive blades is decelerated the appropriate amount, you've got what you can get and you're done. It doesn't matter if the next blade is 45 (8 blades), 90 (four blades), 120 (three blades), 180 (two blades), or 360 (one blade) or whatever degrees around the shaft from its predecessor. Fewer blades, wider blades (to affect a deeper "cut" of the wind).
One blade is a pain to do right. Only a handful of people have attempted it. You end up with a big counterweight, a shape something like a maple seed, an even more extreme version of the two-blade yaw vibration issue, and a few problems of its own. Plus extreme downwind subsonic vibration. Keeping unbalanced wind forces from shaking the mill apart at different wind speeds is a pain, too.
Two blades have an issue with vibrating during yaw - turning to track a changed wind direction - while spinning (and they'll always be spinning when they yaw). They have a lot of inertia against yaw when the blades are horizontal, essentially none when they're vertical, so tracking of wind changes varies as the blades turn, causing the mill to shake.
Three or more blades balance nicely. There's no substantial advantage to more blades (except for four on small mills, where it may be easier to fabricate two opposing blades out of a single piece of material). But more blades on the mill means more blades to make. So horizontal-axis mills usually end up with three blades, or occasionally four on small ones.