Democracy can be unfair

Democracy is not inherently fair.

Take hypothetical candidates for some office. The people will vote for the candidate of their choice, but how do the people know which candidate is the best choice for the office? Their perception of each candidate depends on what they know about that candidate. Because there are so many people and they are spread across a large amount of land, it's not possible for the candidates to speak to each person directly. What each candidate tells the people about themselves is limited by how that candidate can reach the people. Television, radio, billboards, pamphlets, internet sites, and word of mouth are some common ways to reach people and they all incur costs for the candidate. So how much each candidate can tell people about him or her self depends on money. Not all candidates have the same amount of money so candidates with more money are more likely to reach more people and be able to tell them more about themselves (or tell them negative things about other candidates). Because people are more comfortable with people with whom they are more familiar, even if the messages from two identical candidates are essentially the same, the candidate with more public exposure is likely to receive more votes. This may be unfair. Furthermore, people don't necessarily vote for what is best for the county, state, or country. Some people may conscientiously vote for what is best for everyone but most people just vote for what they think is best for themselves first and then for everyone else. So the votes are naturally subjective and playing to people's selfish subjectivity is an old play for politicians running for an office. Once in office, politicians are under no obligation to fulfill their campaign promises. There is no law requiring any effort towards fulfilling campaign promises. There is no penalty for not fulfilling them and even though theoretically the punishment for not fulfilling them is to be voted out of office the next election, historically politicians continue to be re-elected even after failing to fulfill their most important promises.

In a state with millions of people, not all people drive the same roads. But is the road improvement budget apportioned according to the number of people in each area and the taxes they paid towards the road improvement budget? Or do people in rural areas pay the same amount towards road improvement but see a fraction of the benefit relative to tax payers in other areas because the money from all over the state tends to be spent in more highly populated areas?  Do people in some areas wait an unreasonable amount of time for improvements to occur because the state published the entire work as one offer and the winning company can't do it all at once, so it focuses on highly monitored areas first? Maybe work should be published as multiple offers according to geographical areas and the work contracted to multiple companies who will execute simultaneously.