No, I've never seen it. I'm no expert, but I've never seen it in anything that I've read. I think my interpretation in this regard is quite unique. In regard to what the superfluous votes are and what the instrumental votes are, it's quite a fascinating question. I explained my system to somebody once and they said, “Does that mean that the people who come in the morning elect the constituency winner and the people who come in the afternoon, their votes are superfluous?”
The answer to that question is no. The distinction between instrumental and superfluous votes is actually just a theoretical artifact, a construct, in a way. All the winning votes partake a little bit of being superfluous and some are instrumental. It's just that it's a theoretical model that allows you to make calculations.
I like to compare it to the model of the atom that you're taught in chemistry class in high school, atoms spinning around a nucleus like a miniature solar system. Quantum physicists don't interpret the atom that way any more; they do it on the basis of probability theory or something like that. That's probably not the way atoms really look, but it doesn't matter because that model of the atom allows us to do an infinite number of things with chemistry and so forth.
That's what this is like; it's a theoretical construct. You have instrumental and you have superfluous. But no, they're all together like that.
Do you follow what I'm saying?