A philosophy of any ilk will not survive long in our little, ever changing corner of the universe if it can not also change. Thus the conundrum for any thought that is rule based. Even such basic rules as presented in The Mosaic Ten Commandments need to be and have been interpreted in many ways.

My favorite example of breaking a commandment is: A bad guy comes to your front door and asks you where your children are....

reductio ad absurdum...you need to study philosophy...

Objectivist ethical principles are meant to be practical, in the same way that principles of engineering are meant to be practical.

When the principle involved is not very clear, then it makes sense to act in the way that you've judged to be practically beneficial.

If the principle is clear, it may remind you what the difference is between a short-term gain and a full-context, long-run benefit.

I discussed this in much more detail in "Why Act on Principle?"https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/... when The Atlas Society used to teach Objectivism.

The prickly part of any Philosophy is what happens when it interacts with the physical world rather than remaining in the world of thought. This can sometimes cause a base conflict that is incompatible with one or the other.

Your example here is an example of this.

Also one other point for your example, not choosing by not voting is also a choice even though many see that as avoiding a choice.

I have seen people be as dogmatic over Objectivism as others are over religion.

Who is the better Objectivist? The one who hews to principle and makes the selfish decision in their own interest or the one that makes a decision against their own interest in service of the appearance of Objectivism?

What you assign to being pragmatic (I am unaware of this “Pragmatism cult”) is really just short sightedness. Being practical and understanding the long game are two different things and are not inconsistent.

Here is an example:

One likes nuclear power but opposes socialism.
A senator that supports nuclear power, but wants to subsidize it using public funds.
Another senator opposes nuclear power, has had a mistress, and curses continually, but seeks minimal government and is well connected.
Which one does one vote for?

For me both are wrong. I would vote for the minimal government senator, because the long-term effects are better. In addition, the first senator is unlikely to succeed with nuclear power due to significant opposition.

There is no third choice for senator. There will be a senator. Not voting, or a “write in” accomplishes nothing, unless there is certainty one’s candidate will win anyway.

This is pragmatic. I think it is consistent with Objectivism.

What is 'pragmatism? There are formal definitions. I prefer to regard it as short term actions which get you off the hook but are likely to come back to bite later, there is a parallel view that it is doing what you can get away with, cheating, lying and theft can be part of pragmatic actions if the perpetrator benefits.

As a policy for action I prefer to use the response of Rand (when speaking thru Dagny Taggart). The motor had no history, it had no origin, Dagny could claim it. But Dagny will not steal, even from an unknown inventor.
It is the living to these values which define Objectivism.
Strict- yes maybe, actions are to follow thought and evaluation against values, not at all the post-modern view of follow your heart, take it as it comes, regret nothing, think nothing, learn nothing.
Sterile- no, Objectivism demands that the rights that you claim be acknowledged to everyone else. There is no other way - try it.

The analogy- as I understand that kind of situation, you can score points and have fun by doing it wrong, that may be ok for you if you are unwilling to put the time into learning the correct way, the real winner has put in the practice to show the theory is right (assuming it is) and their performance looks effortless.