And what the article is arguing (and with which I agree) is that choosing not to support Hillary could very well be the moral equivalent of voting for Trump depending on your state.
That's why I reject the false premise, and refuse to participate in this charade of 'democracy.' You can also see how I would resent being guilt tripped or shamed into voting for someone (Clinton) who I do not support, just to prevent someone else (Trump) I do not support from winning.
Depends on your definition of viable, I suppose. One could argue that Perot and Teddy Roosevelt were "viable" from the perspective that they made waves, even if they didn't really have a chance (although I suppose the same could said be about Nader if that's the bar for being viable). Maybe a better argument is that Lincoln was an alternate candidate, given that the Republicans were only a couple years old when he ran (although of course they rose from the ashes of the Whigs). I think the rise of the GOP is a good argument for not having the parties baked into law, and for keeping them very private. The down side of the open primary system is that it basically enshrines into law that these two parties can't die. I think in a winner take all system that the mathematics show that two parties will always dominate, but it's not a law of the universe that it has to be these two parties. I would love to see the GOP collapse under the gravity of its own bullshit, but that seems unlikely.
Reince Priebus obviously deserves to lose his job waaaaaaaaay more than Wasserman-Shultz did. She did her job, and he didn't do his, yet somehow she's the bad guy. Imagine yourself two years ago. Now imagine yourself imagining that the GOP would nominate a guy who disparages military veterans and their families. New management would be a start, but they need a general purge also.
DWS' problem is that it's the outsiders that want her head for thwarting their will. RNC_PR_BS failed to quell a rebellion. I think they're both establishment victims of circumstance; neither fully understood the depth of their problems. But yes. RNC_PR_BS effectively presided over the death of of his party, while DWS withstood an insurgency at great personal cost.
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.