There are electronic versions of many of the articles online already, and more are available to subscribers. The surest way to see the ratio of electronic to print articles increase is to subscribe (since that pays the bills).
In my opinion, a switch to an all-electronic format would lower the quality of the magazine. I base that on a few decades of watching such changes in general, and in science publications in particular. The first thing to go is editors, followed by artists and designers. Those folks are integral to the accuracy, consistency, and art of the magazine, in my opinion.
I also have been working with electronic preproduction and press operations now for nearly 40 years, from newspapers, to technical publications, to magazines. In that period, I have watched the steady decline of skills related to print which are (in my opinion incorrectly) thought by management not to be "important" enough to continue once a publication goes electronic. I think this is largely because totally electronic production is presumed to be (and in many cases demonstrated to be -- especially if you remove "roadblocks" like editing and graphic design) very much faster. It is therefore assumed to be much more efficient.
In my opinion, it is often more like producing spam by the truckload than producing fine dining by the meal.
I get a lot of argument from friends in the Web design and electronic production business over my position on this. What stands out most remarkably in these arguments is that most of the folks who argue on the "other side" are very much younger, with very little experience in both methods of publishing. I think the more you know about both sides, the better you're equipped to deal with the issue when it arrives on your doorstep. And it will, sooner rather than later.
Let's not hasten in that direction ... just my 