I think it's actually the denominator that changes. If there is a need to draft 20 men, and there are 100 eligible to draft, then the chance of being drafted is 20% (20 divided by 100). If one of the 100 is granted conscientious objection status, then there are only 99 eligible men. The chances of one of them being drafted goes up to 20.2% (20 divided by 99).
The actual system (at least at the time I was eligible) was a bit more complex; it was based on 365 birthdays randomly drawn. My draft number was 49. (If you know the year I was born and have access to the lottery results, you could determine my birthday!) Men were drafted starting with number 1 and going as high as necessary. I would have been unaffected if a man with a draft number higher than mine had been granted conscientious objector status, but more affected than the simple calculation above would indicate if a man with a draft number equal to or lower than mine was granted that status. (I suppose that the complex effect would average out.) Few men (perhaps none) were drafted that year, and even with my low number I was not drafted. Mark From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 12:28 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: The Establishment Clause, burden on others, the employer mandate, and the draft The draft pool was effectively local, as you envision it, through the Civil War. Each county was given a quota to fill. I think it was nationalized for World War I, but I don't really know. It was certainly nationalized by the time of Vietnam. Local boards administered the classification system, but all those classified I-A went into a national pool from which draftees were selected. It was called the Selective Service System, and your draft letter began, "Greetings! You have been selected . . ." So for every person granted conscientious objector status, your odds of being drafted went from n over however many million in the denominator to n + 1 over that denominator. Considered at that stage, the increase was infinitesimal. Somewhere there was a guy who got drafted who otherwise would not have been, but it was impossible to identify that person. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
