I don’t know if this has been used before, but there is a good reason not to:
The concentration of power would be a huge problem for such a system. If a single person gets the majority of votes, then they get to make the decisions. That’s a system with a single point of failure, if corruption is bad right now, imagine what it would be then…
Keep in mind that voters tend to focus on a few key individuals. In a system which you don’t need more seats if you have the votes, the concentration of votes to a few individuals would be taken to new extremes.
One could make the counterargument that if the voters want to be represented by a single person, then it should be their right to get that. However, it’s more likely that such a result would be driven by the choice for the lesser evil.
Maybe a completely different electoral system, (a) without a fixed number of seats (aka a single vote is enough to be part of the decision making body) and (b) really frequent elections (6 months or even less), would work in the favor of the people, but there a tonne of practical issues with both requirements.
PS A single person is the extreme but not unlikely case, instead it’s more likely a dozen or two candidates will gather that decision making majority, but the corruption argument is still the same.