The whole argument assumes that the best thing to do for a fascist president is to lie about receiving three fascist policy cards. The moment that becomes the assumed behaviour of a fascist president, then it becomes beneficial to lie about the card chosen by the chancellor (i.e., "I passed one of each, they selected the fascist one!"). They also complain that the best strategy for Hitler is to play super liberal, but again, the moment that's the assumed behaviour, doing elsewise becomes a better choice; also, liberals should be trying to become chancellor, because the only person a liberal player is sure isn't Hitler is themselves. Most of the complains seem to be a group think problem.
Depends on what you are comparing it to. I understand the complaint about the policy deck being random. But I don't think, say, Resistance with more than 7 players has more real information than SH. And Resistance does have the "first leader randomly chooses team of only rebels" problem.
I've only tried Avalon once, and I didn't like it as much as Resistance, because it feels very hard for Merlin not to get assassinated. But a lot of people seem to think it's the better one, so I must be missing something.
PS: I love Resistance, by the way.