As @Watson pointed out, any Pareto-satisfying voting rule that is strategy-proof must be a dictatorship (i.e. one ballot determines the election, regardless of what any other ballots say.)
However note that there are dictatorial voting rules that many would argue are nonetheless "fair" in some sense. Consider the "random dictator" method: Select one ballot at random, and use that to determine the election. Everybody has an incentive to vote sincerely (in case their ballot is the one chosen) and the method is likely (though not guaranteed) to pick the "best" candidate in the sense of maximizing global utility.