IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v74y2020i2p197-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lest We Forget: U.S. Selective Service Lotteries, 1917–2019

Author

Listed:
  • James A. Hanley

Abstract

The United States held 13 draft lotteries between 1917 and 1975, and a contingency procedure is in place for a selective service lottery were there ever to be a return to the draft. In 11 of these instances, the selection procedures spread the risk/harm evenhandedly. In two, whose anniversaries approach, the lotteries were problematic. Fortunately, one (1940) employed a “doubly robust” selection scheme that preserved the overall randomness; the other (1969) did not, and was not even-handed. These 13 lotteries provide examples of sound and unsound statistical planning, statistical acuity, and lessons ignored/learned. Existing and newly assembled raw data are used to describe the randomizations and to statistically measure deviations from randomness. The key statistical principle used in the selection procedures in WW I and WW II, in 1970–1975, and in the current (2019) contingency plan, is that of “double”—or even “quadruple”—robustness. This principle was used in medieval lotteries, such as the (four-month) two-drum lottery of 1569. Its use in the speeded up 2019 version provides a valuable and transparent statistical backstop where “an image of absolute fairness” is the over-riding concern.

Suggested Citation

  • James A. Hanley, 2020. "Lest We Forget: U.S. Selective Service Lotteries, 1917–2019," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 74(2), pages 197-206, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:74:y:2020:i:2:p:197-206
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2019.1699444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2019.1699444
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2019.1699444?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:74:y:2020:i:2:p:197-206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.