How did the 1969 lottery procedure differ from methods used in later years?
Executive summary
The December 1, 1969 draft lottery converted a previously age‑based system into a public, birth‑date‑based random selection process, pairing every day of the year with a sequence number drawn from capsules in a glass drum and televised live to the nation [1] [2]. That first lottery differed from later lotteries both in its specific mechanics—how dates and alphabet order were assigned, the scope of eligible birth years called that year, and the immediate legal rule limiting future calls—and in the controversies it produced about whether the draw had been truly random, which prompted procedural adjustments in subsequent years [1] [3] [4] [5].
1. The pre‑1969 method vs. the 1969 innovation: replacing “oldest first” with a birthday lottery
Before the 1969 amendment, the Selective Service typically called men by age—effectively drafting the oldest eligible men first—an approach critics said disadvantaged the poor and uneducated and produced predictable inequities [1] [6]. The Nixon administration’s November 1969 amendment required a “random selection (lottery)” and the December 1 drawing implemented that change by placing each calendar day into capsules, drawing them sequentially to assign lottery numbers, thereby turning birth date into the primary ordering device instead of proximity to age 26 [7] [1].
2. How the 1969 drawing was conducted: drums, capsules, and an alphabet second draw
The mechanism for the first Vietnam‑era lottery was highly public: plastic capsules, a glass container, and public officials drawing dates on camera; the first capsule contained September 14, which received lottery number 1, and the drawing continued until every day had a sequence number [1] [8]. On December 1 a second, separate draw assigned an order for the letters of the alphabet—used to break ties by surname—so that after date order was set, an alphabet permutation determined which last names would be called first when necessary [6] [3].
3. Immediate legal and operational effects unique to 1969
The 1969 lottery applied to men born from January 1, 1944 through December 31, 1950 and determined the order of call for calendar year 1970; importantly, the 1969 amendment contained a rule that if a man was not drafted in his first year of availability he could not be drafted in later years, a change that compressed the period of uncertainty from seven years to essentially one year [1] [4]. Practically, the Selective Service actually called only up to a specified Administrative Processing Number—in the first lottery the highest APN called for service was 195—which meant many assigned numbers were never activated for induction that year [3] [9].
4. Criticisms of randomness and how later lotteries adjusted procedure and scope
Statisticians and critics quickly accused the 1969 draw of nonrandom clustering—later calendar months were disproportionately drawn early—prompting congressional hearings and demands for a new draw or improved procedures; the complaint was that the capsules may not have been adequately mixed, a flaw visible in the distribution of low numbers toward November and December birthdays [5] [3]. Subsequent lotteries (held again from 1971 through 1975 for different birth cohorts) retained the basic capsule model but adjusted the year‑by‑year scope—each later lottery applied to specific birth years—and the Selective Service refined public procedures and used the alphabet permutation determined in the 1970 lottery for tie‑breaking, reflecting lessons about appearance of impartiality [6] [3] [7].
5. The legacy difference: single‑year exposure, public spectacle, and technical scrutiny
What set 1969 apart from both the older “oldest‑first” draft and the later lotteries was the combination of a legal shift that limited exposure to a single year, a highly publicized drawing method intended to demonstrate fairness, and the unexpected statistical evidence that the process had not behaved as truly random—an outcome that shaped how later lotteries were scoped, explained, and justified to the public and led to procedural refinements in subsequent years [4] [1] [5].