Speaking from a United States of America Governmental Perspective...

As an individual, you are only able to vote for the individuals in your state, and the President (VP is no longer a voted-in position; I'd like to see that law change back to what it was previously, but that's neither here nor there).

Wait, where was I? Ah, yes... As an individual, you vote for representatives in your state and some at the national level. This means that you only control as many as 2 votes in the Senate and 1 House of Representatives Vote for your District Representative. Of course, there are more local members of government who you vote for as well, but for the National Level, this is what is in your control.

So do I have the right to complain about the individuals who I directly elected into office? Yes.
Why?
Because I voted them in to perform a purpose based on their indicated values and platform that they ran on. If they do not adhere to those values or their platform, I am allowed to complain. I am also obligated (if I complain) that I vote for a new representative at the next election period. This is part of the reason why Terms were implemented by our founders.

Moving on to your questions... Simply put, I'm not going to answer them directly.

You've asked pointed questions in order to illicit a specific response that validates your opinion. I just can't bring myself to respond to that type of manipulation. Also, it seems like you had those questions pre-written; you responded fairly quickly with a somewhat lengthy and well-structured response.

The hypocrisy of government that you speak of is granted to the government by those willing to do nothing. So by not voting, you're willfully providing power to those who do not deserve it and are not representing the public.

If we had a larger portion of the population voting and participating in the US government, the foundation the US government is built upon has solid footing and provides ample ability for the people to be represented.

On the other hand, the same foundations also provide corrupt and self-serving individuals with a powerful platform to stand on and exploit.

Did you know that in the last US Presidential Election [2016] (where the country sees the highest voting percentage of any other US election), only approximately 60% of eligible voters actually voted in the election? That means approximately 40% of eligible voters abstained from such a "divisive" and "controversial" election.

Now imagine if those 40% all voted for a 3rd party candidate. Probably a bit extreme of an assumption, but if they didn't vote for either individual, what's to say they wouldn't vote for the 3rd party candidate? How do you think the country would respond to an election where it was proven a 3rd party candidate could win enough votes to actually make changes in the government? It's unlikely that the 3rd party candidate would get voted in the first time -- people will stick to what they know (Democrat / Republican), at least until they see that the possibility of another party / candidate is a viable option.

TL; DR;

Participation is the only way to have any right to complain. You either voted for someone who lost and can complain that "your candidate would have done better." Or you voted for someone who won, lied about their intentions, and acted contrary to what you voted them in for, and you can complain that "this guy is a liar and won't last another term."

Complaining because "the system is broken", when you're not actually using the system to begin with, or the system is not being used for its intended purposes, is improper.

You cannot ask a group of people to commit violence in your name and call it moral.

At least in the US, this is not as common of a practice. Sure, there are US leaders who have sent American Soldiers to go out and fight some war for political reasons and mask it as some moral reason, but most of the time (recently) American Soldiers haven't been [publicly] deployed with the purpose of immoral violence.