  A canonical problem in social choice is how to aggregate ranked votes: given
$n$ voters' rankings over $m$ candidates, what voting rule $f$ should we use to
aggregate these votes into a single winner? One standard method for comparing
voting rules is by their satisfaction of axioms - properties that we want a
"reasonable" rule to satisfy. Unfortunately, this approach leads to several
impossibilities: no voting rule can simultaneously satisfy all the properties
we want, at least in the worst case over all possible inputs. Motivated by
this, we consider a relaxation of these worst case requirements. We do so using
a "smoothed" model of social choice, where votes are perturbed with small
amounts of noise. If, no matter which input profile we start with, the
probability (post-noise) of an axiom being satisfied is large, we will consider
the axiom as good as satisfied - called "smoothed-satisfied" - even if it may
be violated in the worst case. Our model is a mild restriction of Lirong Xia's,
and corresponds closely to that in Spielman and Teng's original work on
smoothed analysis. Much work has been done so far in several papers by Xia on
axiom satisfaction under such noise. In our paper, we aim to give a more
cohesive overview on when smoothed analysis of social choice is useful. Within
our model, we give simple sufficient conditions for smoothed-satisfaction or
smoothed-violation of several previously-unstudied axioms and paradoxes, plus
many of those studied by Xia. We then observe that, in a practically important
subclass of noise models, although convergence eventually occurs, known rates
may require an extremely large number of voters. Motivated by this, we prove
bounds specifically within a canonical noise model from this subclass - the
Mallows model. Here, we present a more nuanced picture on exactly when smoothed
analysis can help.
