I think you are right that there is an implicit assumption of digital access if government messages is delivered by electronic mail.
However its not an unreasonable pathway from an efficiency and reliability perspective to push people towards mostly all online transactions. It does however make addressing the digital divide much more pressing however. Thus at the very least I think we need to push to have ways of accessing the net in an accessible manner like the way you mentioned above.
I think ultimately what all the above discussion points out is that there is two sides to the problem. If we want to address a problem. We have to address both the rules that govern a system as well as how accessible/enforceable it is.
||Community Trust/ Police Resources
||Bureaucracy Complexity And Accessibility
||Voting System Accuracy And Resistance To Bad Actors
So what this means, is you can have a very good law ruleset. But if your police is corrupt then overall it is ineffective. Also if you have a bad legal ruleset then even if you have a world class police it will not work.
Most of the time there is discussion around changing the laws around welfare. Which is important, but I do wonder how or if there is enough work to also address the bureaucracy of welfare as well. However I don’t have a solution for this aspect, besides pushing for internal reforms.
But an indirect method of reducing the Bureaucracy Complexity And Accessibility side of things is to reduce the regulation complexity as well. Which is why I’m strongly for the Universal Basic Income. Which I think would at least avoid the need to do what is essentially a workaround a dysfunctional welfare system by improving the bureaucracy side of things (By reducing the human computation of rules. Much like how simplifying algorithms in large internet web services allow for more cheaply servicing millions of people online.).