There was another diaryon recently complaining that people called themselves "independents" who didn't fit the diarist's idiosyncratic definition.
They must be liars, if they used the English-language definition, rather than what the diarist thought that they should mean.
Let's be clear about this. There are at least three flavors of political Independents:
1) Those who think the Democrats are too far right -- Think Bernie Sanders.
2) Those who think the Democrats are too far left and that the Republicans are too far right, and -- think Angus King
3) Those who think the Republicans are too far left -- think Ron Paul
(There could also be people with political views totally off the left-right spectrum. I can't think of any examples just now.)
People of type 1, of course, will normally vote Democratic when push comes to shove, and people of type 3 will normally vote Republican.)
Now some people think that only type 2 can legitimately call themselves "independent." I have never read any explanation for this odd idea, but some people think wo. If you are one of them, go ahead and thin that.
It is remarkably arrogant, though, to also think that they are lying because they answer a question according to their understanding of the term, instead of according to your personal, variant, opinion.
Having said that, self-identified "independents" are the most volatile group identified by polls. In another electoral season, sometimes in another hour, a person in group 3 may decide to identify himself as Democrat.
I am particularly sensitive to this misunderstanding, because all my political involvement has been whil I live in Chicago. Chicago politics has two organized, effective groups: "Regular Democrats," (regs, machine, hacks and "Independents," (googoos, reformers) The first group is more conservative than the second -- Think Rahm Emanuel. There are also Republicans, although not many, and the Republicans get along just fine with the regular Democrats.