Were there any irregularities in the 1969 Vietnam draft lottery drawing?

Checked on January 29, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

The 1969 Vietnam draft lottery produced a result widely criticized as non-random: later-calendar birthdays were drawn disproportionately early, increasing the chance those men would be called to serve, a pattern statisticians traced to poor mixing of the capsules used in the televised draw [1] [2]. The Selective Service did not overturn the results, judges rebuffed injunctions, and subsequent lotteries adopted improved procedures, but the original drawing left a demonstrable statistical irregularity that affected roughly 850,000 registrants [3] [4].

1. How the lottery was supposed to work — a live, symbolic experiment

The method used on December 1, 1969, placed 366 paper dates into blue plastic capsules that were emptied into a large glass container and drawn sequentially on live television so each calendar date was assigned a draft sequence number; the first capsule drawn determined lottery number 1, the second number 2, and so on [4] [5]. The process was designed to introduce a random element to a draft system long criticized as biased against the poor and less-educated, and the live drawing was as much a political performance as an administrative act [6] [4].

2. Where statisticians say the randomness broke down

Almost immediately mathematicians and statisticians complained that birthdays clustered by month, with dates late in the year showing suspiciously low lottery numbers — meaning men born in later months were more likely to be inducted early — and analysts pointed to inadequate mixing of the capsules as the plausible mechanical cause [7] [2] [5]. Modern re-analyses and Monte Carlo simulations reaffirm that the observed deviation from uniformity was unlikely under a truly random draw, with the distribution skewed in favor of later dates being drawn earlier than chance would predict [1] [7].

3. The courtroom and public reaction — challenge without reversal

A university student and others sought legal relief, arguing the lottery was mathematically flawed and asking a court to enjoin inductions until a truly random procedure was used, but judges refused to halt the draft on that basis and the Selective Service left the results intact while facing widespread public anger and anti-war protest [8] [9]. Media coverage and historians subsequently documented the controversy, noting that the perceived unfairness only amplified resistance to the draft and fed the larger antiwar movement [10] [9].

4. Administrative response and later lotteries

The Selective Service System preserved the 1969 results — the highest numbers called for service came from that table — but later lotteries (1970–1972) used revised procedures that statisticians and officials treated as better randomized, and no retroactive changes were made to the 1969 assignments [4] [3]. The agency’s historical accounting acknowledges the draw procedure and its mechanics, while independent datasets and reconstructions continue to show the original draw’s month-based bias [4] [5].

5. Assessment: irregularity, cause, and consequence

The factual record across contemporary reports, statistical follow-ups, and archival data supports a clear conclusion: the 1969 lottery exhibited empirically detectable irregularities — primarily a bias that advantaged late-year birthdays — most plausibly caused by insufficient mixing of capsules and the physical setup of the live draw; those irregularities were never corrected for the affected registrants, though later procedures were improved [1] [5] [3]. Alternative perspectives — including the government’s interest in a public, transparent procedure and the practical difficulties of perfectly randomizing 366 items on live television — explain why the drawing proceeded and why results stood, but they do not negate the statistical evidence of non-randomness [8] [4].

Want to dive deeper?
How did statisticians quantify the bias in the 1969 draft lottery?
What procedural changes were made to the Selective Service lotteries after 1969?
Which birthdates in 1969 had the lowest draft numbers and how many men did that affect?