No. And He never has. Otherwise all elections would have occurred on this first vote with an unanimous decision.
The answer by ET might eliminate Mattias, chosen by the non-political OT means of casting lots, (Prov. 16:33) - which Rome has never used - as being guided by God, but to deny that Holy Spirit guides the college of cardinals in the selection and election of the new pope, so that the man they choose is His choice as in selecting Saul and David, need not mean that God does not make the carnal choices of men work toward His plan. Which He does even with the reprobation of the devil and the Fall of man.
And which appeal to Divine Providence is a recourse of RCs (https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1454) who admit that God does not guide the college of cardinals in the selection and election of the new pope. Catholics can rightly argue that God enjoins obedience even to evil civil rulers, insofar as this obedience does require disobedience to God, and as with Caiaphas, such can speak Divine counsel due to being in the office of the High Priest.
However, Caiaphas did not define doctrine not intend to, but prophesied as per his office, nowhere is the promise given that those in that office will forever be infallible whenever they speak according to an infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria.
Nor does possessing valid authority mean that dissent must be wrong when when speaking on the next magisterial level, under the premise of protection from salvific error, even if not speaking infallibly. God provided Truth and preserved faith by sometimes raising up men who were without the established magisterium and who reproved those in it. Which is how the NT church itself began.
And thus there can be no assurance of veracity and requirement of implicit obedience based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), or even protection from only salvific error. The only wholly inspired substantive body of the words of God is Scripture, not the words of RC popes.
And thus the appeal to Divine Providence does not ensure that the choices of the Cardinals (whom RCs are enjoined to follow as docile sheep under the headship of the pope) will not be that of electing a devil, but neither can implicit obedience be required to such.
Moreover, while traditionalists contend for the validity of dissent from the pope and parts of V2, charging him and the body of cardinals with bd judgment and even heresy based upon their judgment of what valid church teaching is and means, this is contrary to the RC model which they tell us we need to submit to the pope and bishops overall, and not ascertain the validity of church teaching based upon our judgment of what valid church teaching is (the NT) and means.
This is the height of illogical reasoning. Of course, the Holy Spirit does not choose the successor to St. Peter otherwise there would be no freedom of will. We all pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance just as we do in our daily prayers and invocations. But in the end we are free to disobey the will of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Popes may even be corrected. But when a successor to St Peter acts ex cathedra in union with all the Bishops in proclaiming dogma this is where infallibility attaches.
Before the Bible there was the Church. Hence when the Church formally announced the Books in the Bible as the true Word of God somewhere around AD 380 in the Council of Rome, this act became infallible, and hence the authenticity of the written Word of God.
The Church alone may provide authoritative and authentic interpretation of scripture. Otherwise we allow the Billy Grahams, Joel Osteens, Rev. Al Sharptons; Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, the Benny Hinns and every other Dick, Tom and Harry and half-witted foursquare church pastors to tell us what scripture instructs.
Go check out the large number of Protestant denominations that says scripture allows for married gay and lesbian pastors.
Ironic, isn't it?