There is an inherent paradox within the independent movement which frustrates their progress.

Independents reject the political party system as being an impediment to good government. Yet to make it possible to dismantle such entrenched and well funded interests it will be necessary to organize, fundraise, submit to authority and develop a discipline. In other words, They will have to develop an organization that is, for lack of a better word, a party.
 
Whenever Independents seriously decide to achieve their ends, this terrible necessity will rise up to face them. If they reject the idea, they will fail.
 
As it stands today, it is true that an individual may refuse to join a given political party. But, while they may become independent of a party, they have not achieved independence from the two party system.
 
Let’s look at the coming 2016 race. The two major parties will nominate the only two people who will have the funding and recognition necessary to have any chance at winning the Presidency. Independents will be faced with a choice of Candidate R or candidate D. These candidates, after satisfying the faithful in the primaries, may make a few meaningless overtures to win your vote. Or they may just gin up negative ads in the hopes of increasing turnout of their base while discouraging you from voting at all.
 
For independents to reach for more than just feeling good about being “above” partisan rhetoric, they are going to have to organize, fundraise and chose their own candidates. In other words, they need to become a third and even fourth party.

I understand your reasoning, Lager.  Here's the rub for me ............. suppose a third or even a fourth party organizes.  What's to say either of those parties would be better than either of the current tribes?

I tend to like a democratic system in which all political teams would be represented in a way that reflects the percentages of the population that voted for them.  Secondly, and I know it's a pipe dream for now, if all voters became independent of a political club the parties involved would have to pay more attention to the needs and wants of the people they were elected to represent.  No politician would able to rely on a base that simply pulls one lever in the voting booth.

I think party independence would also encourage people to become more involved in the democratic process and examine each candidate's thoughts and positions on issues that are important to them as citizens living within a civilized society.

Well, it's certainly not a bad thing.

But let me take the contrarian position (It's in my nature. Hey, I even have a personality test to prove it! )

More people than ever, according to the Pew poll identify as independents.

Do you notice politics/government getting any better?

Hey, I hope that big things come of it.
In fact, I urge independents to aim high. Don't settle for a choice between R and D in November.