In other words, the innocent people are also guilty because by voting they agree to accept the decisions their appointed leaders take for them.
I don't agree. I reject every version of this argument. Specifically, I reject:
1) If you don't vote, you have no right to complain if leaders do bad things. You had a chance and you gave it up.
2) If you vote and the leaders you choose win, you have no right to complain if they do bad things. You got what you asked for.
3) If you vote and the leaders you choose lose, you have no right to complain if those who won do bad things. You lost fair and square.
4) If you don't vote, you are responsible for what your government does. You could have acted to stop it and failed to act.
5) If you vote and the leaders you choose win, you are responsible for what they do. You put them in power.
You can vote in self-defense or for the lesser of two evils without becoming responsible for the evils elected leaders do.
That is the philosophical difference of opinion between statism and anarchy again. I haven't yet seen many occasions where either side considered to change their opinion.
In my view you either:
1) Vote and agree to support the outcome of the election. Even if you voted for someone else. Those are the rules which are known to all participants in advance. You have no right to complain because by voting you have legitimized to be governed by whoever wins.
2) Do not vote and choose to accept to support the outcome of the election.
3) Do not vote due to moral objections. For example if you believe it is morally wrong to use force against people except in self-defense, you would act against your own ethics if you voted. Because by that act you legitimize that the government is allowed to use its monopoly on violence upon others that don't agree with your point of view.