Has the Left ever been unfairly benefited by a first-past-the-post system? Anywhere?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

I only ever see this winning-when-60%-hates-your-guts benefiting the Right, for as long as I can remember.

[Fool Count]

1. In 2006 state assembly elections in West Bengal

the CPI(M)-led Left Front won 49.5% of popular vote, which resulted in 70% of seats due to the first-past-the-post system.
In fact, CPI(M) rules West Bengal for over 20 years now, benefiting from the electoral system. Closer to home, in 1996
British Columbia NDP won 39.5% of popular vote, yet got two thirds of seats in Legislative Assembly and formed the government.
Just a couple of examples from the top of my head.

[joshcryer]

2. Venezuela the "left" lost the majority of the vote but won the most seats.

Note that the "opposition party" was composed of leftists, too, it wasn't just all right wingers.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Depends really?

Labour won the 2001 and 2005 UK general elections with 40% of the vote. It's arguable though that a considerable percentage of the votes for the Liberal Democrats (the UK's third party) would've gone to Labour had the Lib Dems not been an option (witness the bleeding away of Lib Dem support and the rise in Labour's polling since the Lib Dems have gone into coalition with the Tories; the electorate in Britain and arguably in the US and Canada as well has a centre-left majority).

[Ken Burch]

4. The British Labour Party did, in February 1974

They finished 200,000 votes behind the Tories in the popular vote, but took six more seats. That was when Harold Wilson was leading them, so I'm not sure how "left" you could really say they were by then.

As the other posts have indicated...it's happened on rare instances, but those are far less frequent than the times when the right unjustly benefited from it.