ditto: "Let me put it this way, does anyone here feel that the new Majority Vote rule will help get Mr Lozano or any other desirable candidate on the ballot?"

Say 2 of the 3 members do not receive the required majority vote, leaving one of them re-elected.
Say that one is Cliff.
Cliff (I presume) now has to handle rebuilding the BOD.
Say Cliff has been frustrated with some of the past decisions where he was the "1" in a "2:1" vote (if there were any) or an unwilling 3rd in a 3:0 vote.
Yes - this could help in getting fresh blood into at least one position on the BOD.

As an aside, just what is it that the BOD members are currently doing?
TPL is handling all the MMP sales etc, and outside attorneys are arguing all the legal stuff. The only direction they ought to need is "PTSC wins. Period."
Cliff is CFO and also acting CEO so is running "the company" from an operational viewpoint. He is as capable at ensuring MMP income matches what we should be receiving as any other BOD member.
That leaves 'strategic stuff' - which seems to be pretty moot until the 'legal stuff' gets resolved. Maybe they are strategizing (a) their most lucrative exit options on the assumption they will be voted off, (b) their most lucrative exit options if MMP fails, (c) how to invest their windfalls if MMP prevails and (d) how to thwart each and every attempt to allow shareholders a voice in BOD membership. None of which, I contend, is to the benefit of, nor should be paid for by, current shareholders.