But I don't think it's a false premise at all (again, depending on the state). I agree totally with the author's premise that voting only has moral value insofar as it influences a desirable outcome. Not voting at best doesn't influence it at all, and in a swing state that could be actively harmful to the people living in this country.
I actually disagree most strongly with that claim, of all in the article. Voting grants legitimacy to the results of the election, even when you disagree with them. If you are unable to accept the possible consequence of a Trump Presidency, then you should refuse to vote, not hold your nose and vote for Clinton. I choose to apply Kant's categorical imperative in this situation. If we all refused to participate in this "time consuming media spectacle" then the world would be a better place. If we abolished the office of the President, then we couldn't even worry about it falling into the "wrong" hands.