Oakland resident here. Oakland's IRV is terrible because we have no idea who will win the election and even as a relatively informed voter I have no idea who most of the 30-ish mayoral candidates are or what they stand for.

I think Oakland shows elections work both ways. One way, we pick leaders who represent our deeply held views. The other, elections force us, the electorate, to face facts about what combination of policies produces a workable governing consensus, and maybe even changes our views to create a consensus. When it comes to Oakland mayor, we just randomly declare a preference in the dark and someone is declared winner with no real way to form a coalition.

California's new top two system on the other hand is great. In liberal or conservative areas we get offered two meaningful choices that reflect the ideological split in the area. That is, do we want to be radical progressives or just pro-business liberals? Alternately are we reactionary conservatives or more just chamber of commerce Republicans? This gives real choice to the general election electorate and helps forge meaningful consensus.