Do you have a sister? A daughter? A woman friend? Would she be a good candidate for the Georgia Legislature? Would she run?

Chances are she would not.

Here at the end of the Georgia legislative session, the front page article on last Sunday's @issue section was about the dismally low number of women in our Legislature ("Gold Dome women"). This is an apt bookend to the article that ran on Sunday, Jan. 14, the day before the legislative session began, entitled "Power Players at the Capitol."

Did we see any pictures of women there? No, we did not. Why, now well into the 21st century, does Georgia have so few women legislators and no women "power players"?

So what if there are so few women in the Georgia Legislature?

Well, research has shown that the underrepresentation of women in elected office carries two major consequences: a serious flaw in the functioning of democracy, in that all the population is not adequately represented; and the inability of different perspectives for policy preferences between men and women to be effectively vetted.

With fewer women in the Legislature, their views are not given the same platform. Of course, not that all women have the same views. But certainly it is often noted that women not only see things differently, but also they see different things.

However, a much more fundamental question must be asked: Why don't women run?

There seem to be two critical reasons: women are not asked to run, and they do not have the money to run.

Georgia needs to invite women to run.

Florida in 1982 is a prime example of effectively using this approach. For this election the year after the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated in Florida, many women's advocacy groups worked in Florida to encourage women to run for the Legislature. This was coupled with many incumbents choosing not to run, which left open seats. That year saw an influx of women into the Florida Legislature.

Georgia needs to level the monetary playing field. The League of Women Voters states on its Web page that "escalating campaign costs drive out potential candidates and require those running for office to spend too much time raising money —- too often from special interests."

Men tend to fund-raise while women tend to take out loans and ask friends for small contributions. It is often the men who have "insider" connections to raise money.

To compound this obstacle, money flows to incumbents and to those non-incumbents with strong political connections, primarily high-ranking political staff, usually men. These initial fund-raising efforts are essential; it was found that women who get contributions early in a campaign have a higher probability of raising more money later in the contest.

Interestingly, once women have their campaigns up and running, they can compete equitably with men for money. If Georgians want women in our Legislature, we must ensure that they have the necessary donations immediately after they decide to run.

It should be noted that this is not about electing women instead of men. This is about electing women to serve with men. This is about equal representation of the population.

But making the simple assertion that more women should be in elected office has proven over and over to be inadequate in actually increasing women's numbers in elected office.

Let's enable women to run in Georgia. Let's encourage women to run. Let's level the monetary playing field. When more women are enabled to run, they will. It follows that more women will be elected.

Then, "Gold Dome Women" will not have to describe their strategies for getting along with the men. They can describe how they became "Power Players at the Capitol."

> Catherine Neiner is director of career planning at Agnes Scott College in Decatur.