Why do you say that? Louisiana has used a top two system for decades and no one complained. In a state where one party is completely dominant like California, it makes perfect sense. The top two system allows people from the non-dominant party to have more of a say in who gets elected and tends to prevent extremists from getting elected.
This time California luckily avoided a catastrophe. Let's use a hypothetical scenario for a "jungle primary". Let's say the democrats have 20 candidates running for one seat and the republicans have 2 candidates running for that exact same seat. Let's say the two republicans get 20 percent each
. Let's say the 20 democrats get 3 percent each
. In this hypothetical scenario the democratic party would get 60 percent of the primary votes and the republican party would get 40 percent of the primary votes. The party that get the most primary votes would have no one on the ballot in the general election, while the party that has the least amount of primary votes would have two candidates be on the ballots running against each other for that one seat. In this hypothetical scenario there would be a republican running against another republican in the general election for that one seat.