In such a situation there is a possibility that
if a candidate has many social media or contacts and friends (Wimimedian),
they will end up getting more votes than someone who entirely relied on
their nomination and performance.
Is this a problem? That's normally how an election works. You participate in public debates, Q&As, or other events to present yourself to voters who have come to look at all the candidates, and then you reach out and try to engage voters who haven't engaged themselves.
WP:CANVASS exists in the Wikipedia milieu that proclaims that discussions are not votes, and hence discourages ordinary election behaviors in order to promote consensus-based decision-making. (I don't recall offhand whether or how WP:CANVASS has been applied to the one thing that even the English Wikipedia acknowledges is an election: the ArbCom election.)
Nevertheless, I think it would be appropriate for particular venues to consider whether they want to permit themselves to be used for campaigning. For instance, a couple people announced their candidacies or intended candidacies for things on this mailing list earlier this month, which is fine, I think, but you could imagine it becoming disruptive to the list if it devolved into electioneering by a hundred different candidates. Likewise, the English Wikipedia might not permit a candidate to post a vote-for-me message on the talk pages of all eligible voters. That's really a question of disruptiveness to the forum, though, not fairness of the election.