WHILE MOST OF THEIR contemporaries were at costume parties or at horror flicks, four college-aged volunteers spent last Saturday night at a deserted 73 Tremont St. office building in a small third floor law office, making phone calls. Green and white signs hung on the walls, brochures were strewn over the floors, and each person was pouring over a long computer list of names. "Good evening. I'm working for Frank McNamara for Congress. We think Tip O'Neill is no longer in touch with the district, and ...Hello, Hello."

One especially harried worker looked over his list--which had several consecutive marks in the O'Neill column, and only an occasional circle for McNamara--and sputtered about the futility of his task.

And the unbalanced feedback they were getting that night was a sneak preview for the real show three days later. On Tuesday, national Democratic leader O'Neill drubbed local Republican aspirant McNamara, 75 percent to 25 percent.

McNamara's loss was expected, but the margin was a huge disappointment. Low budget candidacies have done as well against O'Neill in the past, but this Boston lawyer had poured $700,000 into the effort. To be certain, his showing was in part related to inefficient organization and campaign gaffes. But it can also be cited as an extreme example of the problems facing Republicans all over the state.

McNamara's soulmate, Walpole businessman Ray Shamie, used almost $1 million of his own income to battle Sen. Edward M. Kennedy '54 (D-Mass.), and he failed to make a dent in the presidential aspirant's popularity. Rep. Margaret Heckler (R-Mass.) lost the seat she has held for eight terms. In the state legislature, Democrats added to their already lopsided majorities in both houses. They now control the House 131 to 29 and the Senate 33 to 7.

The credit for the large Democratic wins goes to Ronald Reagan. He personally made the election across the nation a referendum on whether this country should "stay the course" on his economic programs. While several GOP candidates, such as Heckler, tried to distance themselves from such policies, they were swept away by the prevailing voter sentiment that, in this time of crisis, there is only Democrat and Republican, and no intermediate shades of gray.

The vote was clearly a repudiation of the Republican party, but it was not a mandate for progressive alternatives. For example, Massachusetts citizens, while creating one of the closest things to a one-party system in the country, indicated their conservatism by approving with a solid majority constitutional provisions for the death penalty.

It is also significant to note that Gov. Edward J. King, who openly embraced supply side economics and who was known as Ronald Reagan's favorite Democratic governor, lost in the September Democratic primary by a mere six percentage points. Indeed, polls indicated that it was his brush with corruption, not conservative economics, that provided the margin of defeat. At the same time, John W. Sears '52, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, stayed noticeably silent on the Reagan program, but was buried in the general election by 20 percentage points.

King did well, despite his policies, because he was a Democrat. Sears did poorly, despite his differences with Reagan, because he was in Reagan's party. The vote in Massachusetts Tuesday was more repudiation of a party than support for any principles.