Initially trying to understand how theater relates to the current election cycle left me a little baffled. My first thoughts went to trying to understand what it is I’m feeling towards this upcoming election. In my community, the congressional elections in the last cycle were extremely tense and ended up being close. The incumbent won, which statistically is not all that unusual. In roughly 80 percent of congressional elections, the incumbent wins. The reasons vary, but name recognition and familiarity usually play a significant part. This reality of entrenched incumbents had me thinking, when people choose to visit theater, are they viewing only their own elected incumbents?

Now hear me out. All I’m suggesting is that with so many wonderful options for theater, people go with what they know—or, more importantly, what they’ve heard. Personally, as a relative theater novice, I can see the appeal of visiting a theater with name recognition. It’s easy for actors and artists who are deeply involved with the community to access and find new ways to engage in theater. But what about the novice, the newbie, the never-been-to-the-theater person? How can the local community engage with everyone in a novel way to expand their knowledge about theater, and also to get them to understand theater relates to them?

With a finite amount of disposable income available, the appeal of the easily recognizable theater space or director is not to be overlooked.

I’m reminded of the first time I saw an alternative Shakespeare play. Up until that time, I’d only seen Shakespeare plays in the very traditional, iambic pentameter way. A bunch of people would get together, put on old-timey costumes and perform Shakespeare the same way it’s been done for 50 years in high schools and colleges across the country. However, when I had a chance to view A Midsummer Night’s Dream put on by Speculative Drama at the Steep and Thorny Way to Heaven space, I was intrigued. I wondered why someone would put on Shakespeare, novel concept or not, when there seems to be no end of available playwrights and more modern plays.

Now as a novice theater goer I am still aware my experience is not the norm, and plenty of people in the community have seen gender swap, modernized versions of Shakespeare’s plays. Viewing this version of Midsummer, with gender-fluid roles, aerial acrobatics, and fourth wall-breaking interactions was interesting. I was entertained. I felt challenged. The theater space is small, seating 20, and the actors utilized every bit of space. Puck prowled through the aisles, defying gender—and my expectations of what a trickster can really be. Lysander, again defying type and gender, frolicked in the audience, making us feel uncomfortable and practically breathing down the necks of the lovers.

A small theater company does not necessarily have access to much beyond its own creativity and the will power of the people surrounding it. That means royalty-free works, like those by Shakespeare, have some name recognition built in and are one of the ways to ensure people show up. Shakespeare, beyond being royalty-free, offers multiple available works and stands the test of time in a way few playwrights have. My suggestion is not to stop putting on Shakespeare, but for every retelling and re-imagining, see if there is a local playwright to support.

When you are the director, the props master, the marketer, and accountant for a small theater group, it begins to make sense why you choose to put your own spin on a classic that won’t bankrupt you. It is a difficult decision for a theater company, already resource-constrained, to elect what play to mount. Do you, with your constrained resources, vote for the incumbent with name recognition? Do you put the time and risk into voting for the new name, the potential unknown that can potentially sink your small company?

Similar questions have been asked around incumbents, and how to make sure elections are more fair. Some communities, including Portland, have invested money in elections with that objective. Portland adopted a public finance system for campaigns a few years ago. The city offered to provide matching funds to eligible candidates for mayor, city commissioner and auditor, with funding starting for the 2020 election. Originally, to qualify for the public matching dollars, candidates for mayor would have to raise at least $5,000 from 500 individuals. Candidates for commissioner or auditor would have to raise at least $2,500 from 250 people. In exchange for agreeing to limit individual contributions to $250 or less and abiding by other fundraising limits, qualified candidates would receive a 6-to-1 match for campaign contributions of $50 or less.

On first glance, it’s easy to say perhaps we shouldn’t be funding elections. But if money is the great equalizer, shouldn’t we be expanding horizons beyond name recognition? In that same vein, should we have a better way of funding smaller and lesser known directors and theater companies, to get them to be on equal footing with already established works?

As anyone who has ever followed theater or politics knows, it’s not just about the money. Money will take a great candidate far, but often with grass-roots elections it’s the volunteers—those who donate their time—who help candidates get elected. In that same vein, I would argue that quality home-grown theater, from actors to directors to playwrights, need to be supported with time as well as funds. As a board member for Northwest Theater Workshop, I could see the importance of expanding and promoting new theatrical works, and that by sharing stories and ideas through theater we all have the power to change the world by broadening our perspectives and deepening our connections to others.

What I have learned is that whether we are discussing plays or local elections, if we want to continue to have a diverse and challenging community we must invest not only our money, but also our time in helping any small community thrive.