Your fallacy is it conflates all independents for being independent for the same reason. I am independent and am a Socialist. My dad is independent and is a free marketeer. About the only thing we agree on is that government ought not be a commodity. He construes government as not a commodity because a private business person can fill that market gap. I construe government as not a commodity because of the tragedy of the commons.
That’s great and all, but you and your Dad’s political leanings have nothing to do with any of my arguments. Independent isn’t a single voting entity; we’re not turning into a three-party system with Independent being the third party. We’re dispelling a two-party system.
Another very important detail: if there is no winner from the electoral college, then the House of Representatives decides.
Yes, that is true now. And, none of my arguments rest on it being otherwise. I do not assume this to be an immutable implementation of our electoral system, but I also don’t see it ever changing until it is challenged in earnest and put to the test. There are clearly better, more democratic systems we could see implemented, but nobody is going to ever do that if we keep voting for the same atrocious candidates the major parties give us. There is no political will to make the necessary changes to the system until the changes the system become necessary to answer to the demands of the people. You demand nothing by voting for the lesser of two evils.