well for whom?

It has always been a constitutional republic by design; its status as a representative democracy is the result of a tradition of electoral college voters deciding to be "faithful" and listen to their constituents (overriding them is to my understanding a constitutional right).

I don‘t think it is a spectrum either (if we are even more pedantic), or at least no a linear scale spectrum, but rather a system of government where democratic institutions ensure certain rights and privileges to common citizens and residents. So maybe a multidimensional spectrum where if you fail to meet a vaguely defined and constantly evolving threshold you are not a democracy.

The USA today will probably (and hopefully) not be considered a democracy by some future standard. Disqualifications may include:

* limited suffrage,

* limited or unequal access to health care and education for a significant portion of the population,

* convoluted voting system where certain demographics have little to no chance to pursue public office,

* large constituencies,

* non-state territories/districts with little to no representation at the national level,

* unincorporated populated areas, with little to no representation at the local level,

* a lack of clear separation of power between the different democratic institution,

* failure to enact popular policies,

* police violence,

* the death penalty,

* a large wealth gap,

* a lack of consumer protection,

* a lack of worker rights,

* failure to prosecute the rich and powerful for their crimes,

* a large nuclear armed military which constantly engages in imperialist actions,

* failure to respect the sovereignty of other states,

* etc.

I think describing this system as a Democratic Republic offers no insight into whether it is democratic or not (or how democratic it is on this spectrum). Republic just means that there is a president which holds some the executive power.

There is far more insight into calling the USA a capitalistic aristocracy, a two party state, a militaristic imperial superpower, a flawed, unequal, and underrepresented democracy, a police state, etc.

I was handwaving around the exception for criminals, but I concede your point: it's an oversimplification to say slavery is strictly illegal.

(One can also make some interesting arguments around the notion of the draft).

Definitely. But, for what it's worth, that's a process that takes decades and requires an electorate profoundly asleep at the wheel. Like one that fumbles an election during a pivotal year that decides the timbre of their judicial system for a generation.

Certainly not impossible though.