I do not feel they should be voting at all. Bitcoin's integrity is the responsibility of the miners, not the users.
Er, not quite. If it were entirely up to the miners we'd probably decide not to cut the block reward every four years and bitcoin would go from being a deflationary currency to a (mildly) inflationary currency. People probably wouldn't want to hold BTC for the long term if changes like that could be imposed on them.
Secondly, the miners have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of bitcoin. This means doing whatever possible to ensure that transactions are not reversible. Their decision to revert to 0.7 broke this fundamental rule. They should never do this again if bitcoin is to retain any credibility.
That is very true. As you mentioned, the Satoshi client already
goes into safe mode when it notices a longer invalid chain; this protected the 0.7 clients from accepting transactions on their "short fork" while the 0.8 branch was longer -- they all shut down (ok, some crashed).
What has become clear is that there is a complementary check for
long (but not longer) recent forks on the chain. If the 0.8 clients had included this check the now-infamous OKPAY-BTCe double-spend could not have happened. Hindsight is 20/20, I didn't forsee this and I don't blame anybody else for not forseeing it. But failing to include this simple check in the
next release of bitcoin-qt would be very reckless behavior, and if this situation happens again people will want to know why the client wasn't immunized against it while there was a chance to do so.