Aside from the inconsistencies in your basically conservative philosophy as expressed above (conservatives believe you should be free to choose on your birth control and not have it mandated by government) I believe you make a fundamental, if common, error on the nature and practise of democratic republicanism.
Independents will not, as in never, rule the country because, well, they're independent. The only way that independents achieve any power is by becoming part of a coalition which, in our case, is one of the two parties. Two party's are enough because anything more merely dilutes the ability to form a coalition. The coalition does not compromise on it's platform as to do so is to weaken the coalition and results in it's dissolution. That some members of the coalition leave the party/coalition due to their unwillingness to compromise on their individual beliefs is inevitable. The vast majority do not do so until such time as the party has drifted so far away from their core beliefs that membership cannot be maintained regardless of the few areas where agreement remains. The only reason for joining the coalition in the first place is to lend weight and power to those issues most important to the specific individual. Thus in my case, as a conservative, I will leave the Republican party when it's platform is no longer conservative. In the meantime I will fight to keep it as conservative as possible.
Ronald Reagan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick left the Democrat party because they could no longer reconcile their belief that communism must be resisted with the platform of the Democrat party. Reagan also had serious concerns about the limitations of government and it's growth.
The nature of democratic republicanism is that rarely does the citizen get all that he desires. But to get most of what he desires he, the individual citizen, compromises on some issues of lesser importance to him. Were the party to do so on it's platform it would lose the ability to attract members willing to compromise on some of their beliefs in order to gain representation for their core beliefs.
The independent can wax and wane between parties but in the end he is left wanting and disappointed. Without the strength in numbers of like minded individuals as he, he is powerless. Similarly as a non-party member he is powerless to reform or shape the movement of either party. In the end he is forced to take what's given him only hoping that the prevailing public mood and the party that best represents it are similar to his own beliefs.
Most people understand this because you witness such attention being paid to the issue of flip-flopping. As John Francois Kerry found out; you can be for a war or against a war but you cannot be both at the same time. What seems to resonate much in those voting for a president is an assurance of knowing exactly where the man stands consistently. They are then free to choose or not choose to vote for him depending on how much they align themselves with the majority of the candidate's beliefs. Thus most of our votes are compromise votes as no candidate fully reflects all of our beliefs in total. But what we do not do is to vote for a candidate who then veers and compromises on the very beliefs that we elected him on. (see GHW Bush pledge on "no new taxes" and how a 90% approval rating dissolved against a candidate from obscurity)
If you do not believe that your way, your belief, or your policies are the single best way then you do not deserve the office, and you will probably not be elected to the office. It is not an unwillingness or even a lack of understanding of other's point of view that prevents a candidate from winning or governing effectively. What makes for effective governance is that the candidate has examined both sides of an issue and, having found one wanting, forms an opinion and runs on it. This is not to say that circumstances do not change and that he may not change that opinion later but it is to say that, he risks losing reelection if he does not change for what is commonly perceived as a damn good reason. And without being in office it matters little what his opinion is since he's powerless to act upon it.
So you're either part of the system or you're out of the system. Third party's come and go with little left in their wake. And the system is democratic republicanism. It favors consensus over compromise yet favors stagnation over action. Thus for the citizen concerned about the nature of government action within the party structure and coalition building are of paramount importance. To be independent in the battle merely means getting shot by one side or the other but assuredly getting shot.
On a personal note, there are many things that you and I agree upon and many in which we differ. The only requirement for both of us to meet in a specific party is that we agree upon that which is most important to both of us, letting slide what is less so important for the goal of achieving what is most so. I suspect that you, like I, am always suspicious of one who always takes the party line. It denotes either lack of knowledge of the party line or a lack of either imagination or intellectual rigor.
Thus endeth my amateur civics lesson as I see it. (and I believe the Founders made it.
)