Yeah, it is important, even in places like Massachusetts. I get the point you're trying to make, but imagine if every Democrat voter concluded that their vote was unimportant and so didn't vote... suddenly the Republicans win. Similarly, if you take a swing state that ends with a majority of 2 votes, every voter and non-voter alike could claim that their's was not a very important vote as without their single vote the result would have remained the same. So you vote, not because it is important, but because it could be important to the overall result. Now, if you did happen to know that sufficient people had already voted a certain way to ensure the outcome, then yes, on that basis you can claim that subsequent votes are not important. But how can you know that to have been the case when you vote? Exit polls give an indication, I guess. But you can't know for sure without counting. So you vote. Because it could be important to the result. And as such it is important to cast that vote. In my view, at least. But... I do draw the line at saying that it should be made a legal requirement to vote, as I believe they do in Australia. Having the right to vote is not the same as having to vote.